Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For North Down, in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Walter Dorling Smiles, C.I.E., D.S.O., deceased.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEES CONSERVANCY SUPERANNUATION SCHEME BILL

TYNFMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

BELPER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS &C.) BILL [Lords]

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [Lords]

NATIONAL TRUST BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Palace of Westminster (Heating and Ventilation)

Major Markham: asked the Minister of Works at what temperature and humidity he keeps the atmosphere of the Chamber and the remainder of the new building.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The air conditioning plant enables us to maintain the air in the Chamber, the immediately adjoining Lobbies and in the two floors below at a fairly steady temperature. Normally we maintain a temperature of 66 degrees and a relative humidity of 55 per cent. In the course of late sittings the temperature is gradually raised so that it probably reaches 70 degrees by about 6 a.m.
The air in the Chamber is completely changed six times each hour. As soon as a Division is called, the influx of air is directed into the Aye and No Lobbies. It is difficult to avoid a substantial increase in temperature if several Divisions follow immediately as 10 human bodies have the same heating effect as a 1 kilowatt electric fire.

Major Markham: asked the Minister of Works what complaints he has received that the Chamber and adjacent rooms are usually too hot.

Mr. Molson: From time to time I receive complaints that the Chamber is either too hot or too cold, but since the investigation made at my request last Whitsuntide by Dr. Bedford of the Council of Medical Research they have been fewer. I hope that we have now arrived by trial and error at a temperature, humidity and circulation of the air in the Chamber which is agreeable to the majority of Members.

Major Markham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present conditions of heating and ventilation give almost universal satisfaction, and would he convey this message to his staff?

Mr. Molson: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend and, as the engineers have given a great deal of


time and thought to this matter, I am sure they will be much gratified when I convey his message to them.

Building Labour and Materials

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Works in what proportions the building labour force and building materials are distributed in the construction of housing accommodation, factories, schools and hospitals; and what the comparative proportions were in October, 1951.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): On the distribution of building labour, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) on 3rd March, 1953. Building labour for hospitals would account for less than I per cent. of the total. No figures of the distribution of building materials are available, but the proportions may be assumed to follow broadly the figures for labour.

Mr. Sparks: Is it possible to increase the amount of building materials and labour particularly for schools and hospital development, as there has been in the past 12 months a very substantial reduction in the amount of building?

Mr. Eccles: It follows the investment programme, and to the best of my information this is slightly bigger this year than last year.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, in the transfer of labour to housing, there has been such a large decrease in the amount of labour devoted to the repair and maintenance of existing buildings, which is almost sensational according to his returns?

Mr. Eccles: The explanation is quite simple. It is that the war damage has gradually come to an end, as the right hon. Gentleman can see from the figures issued by the War Damage Commission.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order. May I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call for candles?

Mr. Speaker: I will see that there is more illumination.

Bricks and Cement, Glamorgan

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of bricks and cement

in East Glamorgan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eccles: East Glamorgan has brick and cement works which should be able to produce adequate supplies for local requirements. No complaints of brick shortages have been received, and the only complaint about a cement shortage is being investigated.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that shortages have occurred from time to time? Is he further aware that one of the largest brick works in this area is in a difficult position and has applied to the Board of Trade? Will he bring to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade the need, if possible, to keep this particular brick works in production?

Mr. Eccles: If my hon. Friend will bring to my attention any shortages of bricks, I will look into them. If he will also bring to my attention the difficulties of a particular brick works, I will look into them too.

Royal Parks (Speed Limit)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Works why he will not raise the speed limit for vehicles in the Royal Parks from 20 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour.

Mr. Eccles: The Royal Parks are intended primarily for rest and recreation, and I am anxious not to spoil the amenities by increasing still further the noise and disturbance from motor vehicles.

Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most vehicles using the parks now disregard the 20 miles an hour limit but keep within 30 miles an hour, and would he not only be legalising what is the prevalent practice?

Mr. Eccles: In the last 12 months there have been 1,300 prosecutions for speeding in the parks. It may be that my hon. Friend has been lucky so far.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Would the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the London County Council about this matter so that we may have a uniform speed limit in all the parks in the London area? In Battersea Park, for example, and other London County Council parks the speed limit is 12 miles per hour, and that makes it a little bit confusing for Londoners, and visitors, too.

Mr. Eccles: My responsibility is for the Royal Parks only. I could hardly do more than ask the London County Council, but I think they must remain responsible for their parks.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONATION

Anti-Litter Campaign

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Works what steps he is taking to publicise the need for keeping London free during the Coronation celebrations from the blight of cigarette, ice cream and sweet cartons and other litter.

Mr. Eccles: It is proposed to call special attention to this matter by broadcasting and by an announcement to which, I hope, the Press will give publicity. I hope everyone will help to keep the streets and parks clean on this great occasion.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be an adequate supply of bins and baskets for receiving litter?

Mr. Eccles: We have ordered special cleaners and bins for the Coronation. I cannot say that there will be enough, but I hope so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the ice cream vendors are not entitled to exploit the Coronation just as much as the hotel proprietors? Will not the American visitors expect liberal supplies of ice cream and Coca Cola on the route?

Mr. Eccles: I think we had better wait until 2nd June and see what happens.

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Works what special arrangements in connection with Coronation celebrations his Department have made within the Principality of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eccles: I am arranging to decorate a few prominent Government buildings which are on the route which Her Majesty will follow during her State visit to Wales. My Department will also make the necessary arrangements for the visit to Caernarvon Castle.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said about the Royal visit to Wales, may I ask him if he will also do something to assist the celebration of the Coronation in the Principality on the actual day of the Coronation, and particularly at the greater centres of population such as Cardiff and Caernarvon?

Mr. Eccles: No, Sir, I am afraid we have not enough money to spend on decorations otherwise than on the route along which Her Majesty will go.

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (SURVEYS)

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made with the surveys of the technical resources of industrial firms carried out by the Manchester Research Council, the Department of Engineering Production at Birmingham University and the Social Survey of the Central Office of Information; and whether he will publish the results.

Mr. Molson: The Manchester Joint Research Council's survey is complete and the Council is preparing a report with a view to possible publication. The Department of Engineering Production at Birmingham University is continuing its survey under a research contract with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Bodies working on such contracts usually publish their results in an appropriate scientific journal. A pilot survey of the technical resources of industrial firms in two small selected areas has been carried out by the Social Survey. It is not proposed to publish a report of this survey, but the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are considering the preparation of a general paper covering all three surveys.

Mr. Albu: In view of the very great importance of these inquiries, will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his noble Friend to see that the fullest publicity is given to the results, in whatever form it may be, but in a way that could be fully understood by industry? Will he also ask his noble Friend to ensure that the funds which are devoted to this research are not reduced, and that, in fact, further inquiries are carried out?

Mr. Molson: The Department do try to ensure that all valuable results from such surveys are available in public form, and will continue to do so. As regards the matter of finance, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are trying to maintain and extend the surveys they are carrying out, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the financial stringency which affects the D.S.I.R. as well as all other Departments.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the report of the Manchester Research Council be available to Members, and, if not, will the hon. Gentleman arrange to have copies placed in the Library so that the report is made available to us in that way?

Mr. Molson: I will arrange for the report, when it is published, to be made available in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Noise (Protection)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has noted that about half the number of men employed in chipping, riveting, stamping, plating and heading become deafened to speech at more than three feet after 20 years' exposure to the noise created at their work; and what steps are being taken to protect them from this type of deafness.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): My Department is aware of the recent report of a committee of the Medical Research Council on the medical and surgical problems of deafness and that exposure over many years to noise above certain intensities may cause deterioration in hearing. Much research is being carried out into this question and, as announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works on 24th March, a committee has been set up jointly by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council which will consider, among other things, the effect of noise in relation to human efficiency.
The harmful effects of noise on the individual can be reduced to some extent by the wearing of protective ear coverings and by eliminating injurious noise at its source by improved designs of machines and their mountings and the sound

insulation of walls and ceilings; but the subject has been found to bristle with practical difficulties.

Dr. Stross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that protective ear coverings appear to be very much in their infancy and that there is not a satisfactory type available? Could he tell me if specific research is to be conducted into finding the right type of protective ear covering for these men?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, that is so.

Atmospheric Pollution (Fluorine)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether the inspectorate of his Department have noted the production of fluoride compounds as a by-product of certain industrial processes in Stoke-on-Trent and other areas; and, in this connection, what advice is given to protect the health of the workers engaged in these factories.

Mr. Watkinson: The Department are well aware that some processes in some industries, including some processes in earthenware trades, give rise to fumes of fluorine or its compounds. The recognised forms of protection are enclosure and ventilation arrangements to prevent the fumes from entering or accumulating in the workplaces to an extent likely to be injurious to health. The Department will continue to be on the watch for any signs that such arrangements are inadequate at particular factories.

Dr. Stross: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is need for specific research in an area like Stoke-on-Trent, where there appears to be a considerable amount of fluoride contamination, not only of the area, but of the soil by particles which are deposited on it, which we know kills cattle; and would he see that research on the human population in the vicinity takes place as soon as possible?

Mr. Watkinson: I know the great interest the hon. Gentleman takes in this question, but our inquiries so far seem to show that the only risk of injury is to animals and not to humans. However, we will continue to keep the matter very carefully under review.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to consult the various Government Departments affected?


Already the Ministry of Agriculture and several other Ministries are keenly interested in this, and has not the time arrived when they should be brought together in order to take co-ordinated action?

Mr. Watkinson: I will look into that.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour the figures of registered unemployed in each of the employment exchanges in the North-East of Scotland immediately before the announcement of the new policy for the area on 29th October last; and the latest available figures of registered unemployed for the same exchange areas.

Mr. Watkinson: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

NUMBERS OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF THE UNDERMENTIONED EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AT 13TH OCTOBER, 1952, AND 16TH MARCH, 1953


Employment Exchange




13th October, 1952
16th March, 1953






Males
Females
Males
Females


Buckie
…
…
…
…
184
58
413
154


Portsoy
…
…
…
…
28
15
43
25


Banff
…
…
…
…
132
42
229
54


Fraserburgh
…
…
…
…
268
149
469
337


Strichen
…
…
…
…
28
30
61
21


Peterhead
…
…
…
…
224
141
555
213


The figures for these two dates were affected by seasonal causes.

Re-Armament Work, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the figures of persons employed in Scotland in 1952 on work connected with re-armament.

Mr. Watkinson: It is estimated that at the end of 1952 some 70,000 persons were employed directly and indirectly on defence work, including research and development, in the manufacturing industries in Scotland.

Ex-Regulars (Training)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the facilities are adequate for giving trade or occupational training to the large numbers of time-expired Regulars of all three Services, who will be discharged this year after having been retained beyond their normal engagement, if they desire such training.

Mr. Hamilton: Has there been any appreciable change in the unemployment figure since the implementation of this new policy; if there has been, in what direction has it been; and if there has not been, what further steps do the Government intend to take to solve this very difficult problem?

Mr. Watkinson: If I tried to answer that I should only show how misleading statistics so often are because, due to differing levels of unemployment at different seasons, the fact is that if the last bad peak period, which was January, 1951, is compared with the present March figure, the totals are about the same. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better look at the figures. They are rather detailed.

The following is the information:

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, within the limits imposed by the capacity of industry to absorb adult trainees.

Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter again? May I draw his attention to the case of one of my constituents, an ex-paratrooper with seven years seven months Regular service, who recently applied to the employment exchange at Cradley Heath with a view to being trained in the use of bulldozers and heavy vehicles of that nature, and who was told that no such facilities for training were available?

Mr. Watkinson: It may have been that a course of that nature was not at the moment available. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be kind enough to write to me, I promise him that we will look into the case most carefully.

NATIONAL SERVICE, SCOTLAND (CALL-UP)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the figures of National Service men called up in Scotland in 1952.

Mr. Watkinson: Nineteen thousand three hundred and twenty-six.

Mr. Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many of them were farmers?

Mr. Watkinson: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY, SCOTLAND

Ben Nevis

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to acquire Ben Nevis for afforestation with a view to its ultimate use as a forest park.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): The Forestry Commission have already planted parts of the lower slopes of Ben Nevis. If and when other parts suitable for afforestation become available, they will be considered for acquisition.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend not agree that Ben Nevis, our highest mountain, is a great asset to the British Isles; is he not aware that there used to be a track going up Ben Nevis, with several bridges which crossed burns, and that these bridges have fallen into very great disrepair, giving a bad impression to tourists; and does he not think that acquisition by the Forestry Commission would be one way of putting this right?

Mr. Snadden: As I have said, we will consider any lands that become available, but, of course, sheep interests are involved, and I should imagine that my hon. Friend would have that in mind too.

Blown Timber (Clearance Arrangements)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the most recent estimate of the total damage done to Scottish forests and woodlands by the gale of 1st February, 1953, and subsequently; and whether he is satisfied that

the arrangements made will ensure orderly marketing, a fair price for the grower and the sawmiller, and an efficient and reasonably quick clearance of the ground;
(2) what additional labour force will operate in the devastated areas of Scotland to deal with timber clearance; and how many additional sawmills it is proposed to set up.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the arrangements so far made for handling the fallen timber in Scotland, with particular reference to the negotiations for reduced charges on the railways and to the prices for the timber.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the negotiations with the Transport Executive regarding reduced freight charges for blown timber have now reached a satisfactory conclusion;
(2) whether the National Coal Board and the Transport Commission have now agreed to purchase blown timber from the North of Scotland; and in what quantities, and at what price.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend had intended to make a short comprehensive statement about the Scottish windblown timber this afternoon, but he very much regrets that some details of the arrangements which he had hoped to announce have not yet been fully worked out. He intends to make a statement before the House rises for Easter.

Mr. Spence: Could my hon. Friend give a more definite assurance on the timing of this statement? Can we have a definite assurance that a statement will be made after Question time tomorrow, and that the statement will deal with the question of freight charges?

Mr. Snadden: I cannot add to what I have said. My right hon. Friend will make the statement immediately he has the information to which I have referred. Whether that will be tomorrow or Thursday, I am unable to say, but I can say that the statement he will make will cover the questions referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Boothby: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while we on this side of the House all agree that the statement


should be comprehensive, there is no unanimity about it being short, and we hope that we shall have an absolutely full statement dealing with this problem? As the time of the House is not at stake and there is no reason why the statement should be short, why does my hon. Friend say that it will be short?

Mr. Snadden: I think my hon. Friend can leave that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: In dealing with the question of the fallen timber and the freight charges, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be able to deal with the fact that there are, to my knowledge, important timber projects in the South which cannot be carried out for lack of timber, whereas in the North there is a surplus of timber which has not yet been brought into productive use?

Mr. Snadden: I think we should await the statement of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Personal Case, Sutherland

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the 12-year-old Sutherland boy, details of whose case have been sent him, has been deprived of any education while awaiting a vacancy in the Rudolf Steiner School. Aberdeen, or other similar school.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): This unfortunate child could not be educated at an ordinary school. He requires a particular form of special educational treatment, and the number of special schools providing this treatment is very limited. The education authority are trying to get a place for him in the only type of establishment which might be able to do something for him.

Sir D. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend realise that this boy's father was killed during the crossing of the Rhine eight years ago, and that there is on the State a special responsibility to see that he gets a chance; and will he take immediate steps to see that this boy is taken out of the very small house in which he has been cooped up for all these years while his mental state has deteriorated?

Is there not some building in the Highlands which could be used for this purpose?

Mr. Stewart: This is a very difficult and pathetic case, into which I have made very careful inquiries. I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done. It is hoped that the Rudolf Steiner School in Aberdeen might be able to do something for him, but the specialist's report is that the boy is virtually ineducable, which makes it exceedingly difficult.

Sir D. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have recently seen this boy at his home with his mother, and that I am perfectly satisfied that if he had had some education in the last seven or eight years he would be in a much better state than he is today? Is it not quite wrong that any child like this should be left for seven years without any attention at all?

Mr. Stewart: The difficulty is that he is in such a state that there is no ordinary school in the country which could cope with this poor, unfortunate boy. There are only one or two special schools which are possibilities, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing our very best to pursue them.

Teachers' Superannuation

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that school teachers regard his proposal to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme as a cut in salary; and, in view of the likely detrimental effect of this step on increased recruitment to the profession, what steps he is considering to offset such results.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend is postponing further action on his proposals for the present, as he understands that the teachers and their employers have agreed to set up a working party to review the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme as a whole, in the light of the proposals made last July and of proposals for a scheme of pensions for widows and dependants which the teachers favour. He has arranged to give the working party such help as he can, and if they can let him have their recommendations quickly, he will await them before anything further is done.

Mr. Hamilton: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he could indicate why the teachers were not asked to enter into the negotiations in the first place, and why were the teachers, of all the professional bodies with superannuation schemes, singled out for this particular amendment?

Mr. Stewart: It is a reasonable argument to say that they might have been consulted a little earlier. They are now getting ample opportunity to be consulted. We are awaiting with interest their advice, and I very much hope that we can agree about something.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the teachers regard this as a cut in their salary, and that no scheme is likely to be successful which implies that at this time, when other people are receiving increases, the teachers are to receive a decrease; and is he further aware that he would be more successful in his negotiations with the teachers if the scheme submitted to them appeared somewhat more reasonable?

Mr. Stewart: It is to get a scheme which appears more reasonable that the working party has been set up. As I have said, I look forward to the recommendations of the working party.

Mr. Steele: Will this working party be concerned only with the position in Scotland, or will it be a United Kingdom working party?

Mr. Stewart: A similar working party is being set up in England, and I understand that close liaison will be kept between the two bodies.

Costs, Cumnock

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual cost for each pupil attending the Dalblair School at Cumnock, Ayrshire.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The annual cost per pupil is £101.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Police Widows (Pensions)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that widows of police officers who died before the Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1948, came into

force are not entitled to apply for a discretionary supplementation of pension, whereas widows of police officers dying thereafter are so entitled; and whether he will remove this anomaly.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: All police widows not entitled to National Insurance pensions other than the widows of officers above the rank of inspector who died before 5th July, 1948, may have their pensions supplemented; but the maximum amount of the supplement is greater in the case of those widows whose husbands died after 5th July, 1948, and accordingly had contributed under the National Insurance Scheme. The position was discussed in the debate on the draft Police Pensions Regulations on 9th December last, and no amendment of the Regulations is contemplated.

Mr. Macpherson: Does the reply mean that supplementary pensions can be given on a discretionary basis, both in respect of those who died before that date and of those who died after it?

Mr. Stewart: This is a complicated matter. If my hon. Friend would care to do so, I will do my best after Questions to discuss it and explain it to him. I confess that it is very difficult, as the House will recollect from the course of the recent debate.

Development and Industry (Report)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet completed his study of the Cairncross Report; and what action he proposes to take to implement its recommendations.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the course of the debate on development areas and the distribution of industry on 25th February.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that it is now almost a year since this Report was issued and the Government's intentions must be suspect if, in the meantime, they are not doing anything about it? Can the Minister indicate what, if anything, the Government intend to do with these proposals, or are they going to be pigeon-holed in his office?

Mr. Stewart: I think that if the hon. Member would contemplate this matter for a moment he would see that it is not easy to come to a decision on this matter. The Scottish Board of Industry are considering the Report. They have not yet offered us their recommendations, and the Government's view, as at present advised, is that they do not think it right to alter the present scheme of development areas; but the matter is still being examined.

Mr. Brooman-White: Arising from this Report, should there not be a full review of the whole position of the distribution of industry policy in Scotland?

Mr. Mclnnes: Will the Minister say, apart from the position indicated by the President of the Board of Trade, what consultations have taken place between the Scottish Office and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Board for Industry? Surely something has been done during the past 12 months on this matter?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member can imagine, we are in very close and constant contact with these two bodies and— indeed, it may be that because of these contacts—we are not able quickly to decide upon this matter.

Land Reclamation

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the land reclamation work undertaken at Inverasdale; and what steps he is taking to collate existing information of similar experiments in view of the importance of land reclamation to the Highlands.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend has received a report from the Highlands Voluntary Development Association on their work at Inverasdale last year. This work consisted of the cultivation, maintenance and improvement of existing crofts rather than of reclamation. The Department of Agriculture have experience of land reclamation work being done elsewhere and I do not think that special steps of the kind that my noble Friend has in mind are necessary.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not the case that over the last 13 years Mr. Rollo has been working in Inverasdale and no member of the Department has

been near his work or examined it during that time? Is it not also the case that this type of work, whether it is on old crofts or reclaiming new land, is valuable as serving as a pattern for future development in the Highlands?

Mr. Snadden: We appreciate very much the work of these students which is carried out on a voluntary basis, but the work that has been done on these crofts is not land reclamation. It consists of ploughing, carting and spreading of farm manure, and so on. In the Question reclamation is referred to: the Departments have already had experience of reclamation in the working of the Marginal Agricultural Production Scheme, and the Hill Farming and Livestock and Rearing Acts, and we do not think that anything further is required.

Road Scheme, Isle of Skye

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when work on the road to the 13 crofts in Earlish, Isle of Skye, is to be started; and when it is expected that it will be completed.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the County Council of Inverness about this road and he is at present awaiting their proposals. I cannot say at this stage when the work is likely to begin or when it will be finished.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is not this a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? This road has been waiting for years, and is not this the type of thing which is holding up the expansion of agriculture in the Highlands?

Mr. Snadden: The position is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked the county council to consider a scheme for this road with the aid of a grant. We have been informed that they are preparing a scheme, and when that scheme is received, it will receive consideration.

Local Government Law (Consolidation)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the First Report of the Scottish Local Government Law Consolidation Committee and the Draft


of the Local Government (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill, which has been prepared by the Committee.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The Committee's Report and their draft of a Local Government (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill were referred as soon as they were published, to the Scottish Local Authority Associations and their comments are awaited.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the Second Report of the Scottish Local Government Law Consolidation Committee and the Draft of a Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill, which has been prepared by the Committee.

Commander Galbraith: The Report and draft Bill have been published so that they may be considered by interested parties. The Scottish Local Authority Associations and other bodies have been asked for their observations, which my right hon. Friend will consider when received.

Captain Duncan: With regard to the draft Bills, does my right hon. and gallant Friend intend to introduce consolidation legislation, and, if so. as it will be new, what will the procedure be?

Commander Galbraith: That is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Herring Trade (Negotiations With Russia)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the negotiations for a further purchase of cured herring by the Soviet Government have now reached a successful conclusion.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Negotiations are still in progress between the Herring Industry Board and the Russian agents.

Mr. Boothby: If canned salmon and canned crab enter into this business, will my hon. Friend point out to the Ministry of Food that the British people are very keen on both canned salmon and canned crab?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that fishermen in the West of Scotland are being refused insurance benefit on the grounds that they are

seasonal workers, and that, if this goes on, there will be no fishermen to catch the herring for the Soviet?

Mr. J. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that it is very necessary to find a bigger outlet for cured herring before the summer season starts?

Farm Workers' Wages

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has noted that increased labour costs in agriculture were taken into account at the Annual Review and fixing of farm prices as set out in Command Paper No. 8798; that producers in Scotland have been awarded increased prices to meet these costs; that farm workers in Scotland have not been awarded an increase in wages and that therefore the increased costs have not been incurred; and what action he is taking to ensure that farm workers in Scotland will receive minimum wages comparable with those received in England and Wales.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend has noted the situation to which the hon. Lady draws attention. But he has no power to intervene in decisions of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board.

Miss Herbison: Since the Scottish farmers have been given an increase in prices under the annual review, and since the increase took into account a rise in the wages of agricultural workers, surely the Secretary of State ought not to give a gift of the taxpayers' money to Scottish farmers? Surely the Secretary of State has the right to say to the Scottish farmers, "Wages have not been increased and, therefore, the prices which you are to be paid will be smaller"?

Mr. Snadden: It is true that the aggregate increase in labour costs taken into account at the Annual Price Review reflected mainly the rise in wage rates in England and Wales, but so long as we have a United Kingdom price structure and two separate wages boards such a position is inevitable. Of course, the reverse could have happened; wages might have risen in Scotland.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my hon. Friend at the same time bear in mind the


delicate position of Clyde Valley horticulturists who have been dealt a body blow by the rise in the price of coal?

Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the farmers in Scotland will not put this money in their own pockets? If they have been given money to compensate for a rise in wages, surely common decency demands that they should pay the wages? Is he suggesting that the agricultural wages board would prevent the farmers giving the increase for which they have received the money?

Mr. Snadden: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the intricate problem arising out of the fact that there are two separate wages boards was presented to his own Administration but nothing was done about it. However, we have received representations from the farm servants' union recently about this and I am able to say that we are now re-examining the position.

Mr. Woodburn: Surely the point is not that there is a separate agricultural wages structure; the point is that there is nothing to prevent the farmers paying this money whether the agricultural wages board suggests that it should be paid or not.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it not a fact that the vast majority of agricultural workers are paid higher wages than the minimum rates?

Mr. Snadden: It is true that the wages in England are struck on a different basis from those in Scotland and that in Scotland 80 per cent. of our agricultural workers are in the specialist classes and are receiving wages certainly not less than those in England and Wales.

Miss Herbison: Surely it would not be impossible for the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide what proportion of the increase ought to go on wages and, having made that decision, could he not say to the Scottish farmers, "We are withdrawing that proportion from the money which you will receive"? Is it not also the case that when considering wages one has to have regard to 100 per cent. of the agricultural workers and not merely a proportion of them?

Mr. Snadden: Any interference which would change the wage-fixing methods of today would require legislation. However, I have said that the representations recently made by the farm servants' union about this are now being re-examined by the Government.

Sir W. Darling: Has my hon. Friend received any representations from farm workers to the effect that they have not received an increase in wages? It is certainly within the knowledge of some of us that voluntary increases have been made in response to the rise in the price level.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Joint Undersecretary assure us that the Secretary of State will seriously consider introducing amending legislation to provide for one Wages Board for Great Britain? Is he aware that this difficult situation did not arise during the period of the Labour Government? Does he appreciate that, generally speaking, horticultural workers receive the minimum wage? Does he also appreciate that forestry workers employed by the Forestry Commission receive the minimum wages, which means that Forestry Commission workers in Scotland receive 5s. a week less than do their colleagues in England and Wales who are working for the same employers?

Mr. Snadden: I have already said that we will re-examine the position in the light of representations recently made to us. It is a fact that similar representations were made to the previous Administration.

Miss Herbison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies which we have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Population and Industry (Distribution)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the overspill problem within the Clyde Valley; and what measures of assistance to local authorities he proposes to help in a solution.

Commander Galbraith: The problem of overspill in the Clyde Valley area is receiving the urgent consideration of the Clyde Valley Regional Planning Advisory


Committee. Their report, which is expected shortly, will deal with the extent of the problem and of the measures which might be taken to deal with it.

Mrs. Mann: If the Clyde Valley Planning Committee decides in the affirmative, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to say that Scotland will get the benefit of the Town Development Act just as England does?

Commander Galbraith: We do not know that benefits will accrue. We would rather wait and see what the Committee reports before we make up our minds about this.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend direct the attention of housing authorities to the importance of providing housing where there are sites attractive to industry and where surplus labour is available?

Mrs. Mann: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is showing an amazing ignorance when he states that he is not sure if there is an overspill problem in the Clyde Valley? It is well known that Glasgow has already intimated that it has an overspill problem requiring 60,000 houses.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Lady has taken me up wrongly. I never made any such remark. I said that we were not quite sure of the benefits which would accrue to that area as a result of the application of the Town Development Act, 1952.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint a commission to inquire and report on the distribution of population and industry over Scotland as a whole, in order to achieve a more balanced economy.

Commander Galbraith: Comprehensive information about the distribution of population and industry in Scotland is already available to the Government and numerous aspects of the problem have been separately reported upon by Government committees, the Scottish Board for Industry, committees of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and other bodies. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend does not think that a general commission of inquiry is necessary at the present time.

Mrs. Mann: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend if he would consider a commission or planning committee to view Scotland as a unit because up to now Scotland has been incorporated in corn-Departmental planning? In other words, the Clyde Valley Committee, the Eastern Committee, the Highland Development Committee have been set up to deal with separate areas, whereas the problems of one are probably created by the problems of the other. Would he not consider a planning committee for the lot?

Commander Galbraith: I will not add to the reply which I have given to the hon. Lady. She knows perfectly well that there are different problems in the different areas.

Tuberculosis

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the rate of pulmonary tuberculosis for Scotland, during 1950, 1951 and 1952, with the West of Scotland's percentage of that rate; and what steps he is taking to remedy the higher incidence in this part of Scotland.

Commander Galbraith: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Mann: The Question does not completely ask for figures. The latter part of the Question asks for steps— would the right hon. and gallant Gentle-may say "what steps he is taking to remedy the higher incidence in this part of Scotland? "Could we have a reply to that?

Commander Galbraith: All known measures are being used in that particular part of the country.

Mrs. Mann: As the known measures have not proved very effective, will he try to study some unknown measures?

Commander Galbraith: I would find insuperable difficulty in that.

Dr. Snmmerskill: Could the Minister say to what he attributes the high tubercular mortality rate among young girls as compared with England?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think the reasons are really known. As the right hon. Lady knows, it is being studied but so far we have had no definite reply.

Following is the reply:

Year


Respiratory Tuberculosis






Scotland
"West of Scotland" (comprising Counties of Dunbarton, Lanark and Renfrew and all Burghs therein)
West of Scotland rates as a percentage of the Scottish rates




Notification per 100,000
Death rate per 100,000
Notification per 100,000
Death rate per 100,000
Notifications
Deaths


1950
…
…
157
47
207
70
132
149


1951
…
…
152
37
197
53
130
143


1952
…
…
144
27
188
41
131
152


All the established measures for combating tuberculosis have been and are being intensified in the West of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Eastfield Farm, Cambuslang

Mr. Brooman-White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered plans for the proposed housing development at Eastfield Farm, Cambuslang; and what are the reasons for the delay in commencing work on this project.

Commander Galbraith: No plans have been submitted for this development, as his right hon. Friend's approval is not required. The delay in starting work has been caused mainly by difficulties about the selection of a suitable site for a school, but these difficulties have now been resolved and the preliminary work of laying sewers will start shortly.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the local authority had access to this site for many months, and as the housing in Lanarkshire is as bad as any in Scotland, and Cambuslang is one of the worst places in Lanarkshire, will he use his influence to impress on the local authority the importance of carrying out the preliminary paper work at a tempo more in accordance with the urgency of the need?

Agricultural Land

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to take steps to ensure greater compactness of layout in local authority housing to minimise the loss of agricultural land.

Commander Galbraith: A circular giving guidance to local authorities on this subject was issued by my right hon. Friend's Department in 1951. Since then he has consistently urged local authorities to include in their schemes as large a proportion as possible of flats and terraced houses in order to make the most economical use of building land.

Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is not aware that there is still a great and unnecessary encroachment upon good agricultural land through failure to build on sites already available, which can be built on more compactly, and will he particularly draw the attention of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a volume called, "Design in Town and Village," published this year by the Stationery Office?

Mrs. Mann: Would the Minister not rather call the attention of the Secretary of State to the Scottish manual "Planning Our New Homes," where it was stated that more than 70 per cent. of the population desire houses and not flats?

Flats

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of including a block or blocks of flats in local authority housing schemes in urban areas.

Commander Galbraith: No such representations have been received, nor are


any necessary. Blocks of flats are already included in local authority housing schemes in many areas.

Mr. Maitland: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that in many cases local authorities in their housing schemes go in for buildings of two storeys, and that the addition of an extra storey would cut the encroachment on building land by some 50 per cent.?

Aluminium Houses (Condensation)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to reduce or remove the condensation and consequent dampness in many aluminium houses.

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend recently obtained a report on the results of the remedial experiments already carried out and is considering, in the light of this report, what further steps may be taken in any area where serious condensation persists. In the case of Ayr Burgh, he has already agreed exceptionally to the provisions of thermal insulation at the cost of the Exchequer.

Sir T. Moore: Is it not a fact that, initially, many of these houses were of such poor design and construction that really nothing can be done to them now except to pull them down?

Commander Galbraith: I cannot agree with that.

Mr. Woodbum: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the remedy for this is perfectly well known to the companies in Scotland and England who manufacture the houses and that this was the result of a well-meant, but unfortunately false, economy?

Commander Galbraith: The remedies are being put into practice.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that experiments carried out with houses which are still occupied have considerably improved conditions for the tenants, and will he extend these arrangements as soon as possible?

Commander Galbraith: That is what we are doing.

Mr. Steele: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us how many of all the houses built have been reported

to the Scottish Office as being affected by dampness? Is he aware that this has been going on for a considerable time and that I had a report from the Scottish Office more than 18 months ago saying that something was going to be done about it? Will he ensure that the Scottish Office moves more rapidly?

Commander Galbraith: A very great deal has been done about this already, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I regret I cannot give the detailed figures for which he asks, but the number of houses affected to a greater or lesser degree is some 6,000 out of a total of about 30,000.

NORTH SCOTLAND WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Pensions the date on which the North of Scotland War Pensions Committee last met.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): The main Committee last met on 4th June, 1952, and there have been five meetings of sub-committees since that date.

Sir D. Robertson: Does the Pensions Committee justify its existence when it only meets at such rare intervals, and is there not some responsibility on my hon. and gallant Friend's Department to see it really does the work for which it was appointed?

Brigadier Smyth: The main Committee is very widely spread about, as my hon. Friend knows, and it meets whenever there is anything important to discuss. Very often it is better to rely on the subcommittees which are easier to assemble and can deal with local matters.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Pensions how many counties are included in the North of Scotland war pensions area; and what is its extent in square miles.

Brigadier Smyth: Eight counties are included in the North of Scotland War Pensions Committee area which covers 11,581 square miles.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not obvious that this area, which represents at least a quarter of Scotland, is much too large


an area, and does ray hon. and gallant Friend's answer to the previous Question not indicate that that is so? Will he take steps at least to divide it into two?

Brigadier Smyth: It is, of course, a big area, but there are comparatively few pensioners living in it and only 218 badly disabled. The War Pensions Committee is, of course, helped out with voluntary workers and voluntary organisations like the British Legion and the British Red Cross. Generally speaking, we do not have any complaints about the service.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the hon and gallant Gentleman name the counties concerned?

Brigadier Smyth: I have them here. The counties are Caithness, Inverness, Moray, Nairn, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Shetland.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Widows' Pensions

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for War whether widows of officers who served in the Boer War receive pensions; and how far provision is made for widows of non-commissioned officers and other ranks who served in that war.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Where death is due to a disability connected with active service in the Boer War, the widow can be considered for a pension on that ground; this applies both to officers and to other ranks. Apart from this, the fact that the husband served in the Boer War would not of itself entitle the widow to any award.

Miss Lee: Can the Minister say whether there is a general arrangement providing that the widows of officers who served in those pre-1914 wars get pensions while the widows of other ranks do not get them? Is there a distinction there?

Mr. Hutchison: Any such regulations as exist apply equally to officers and other ranks.

Gift Parcels (Cost)

Mr. Murray: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mrs. Carter, 4, Frederick Street, South

Meadowfield, County Durham, has been asked to pay 9s. to send a half-pound tin of Coronation sweets by air to her son, 22507667 Private R. Carter, 4th Platoon B Company, 1st Durham Light Infantry, British Army Post Office, 3, Korea, and that, owing to this price, this man, along with many others, will be denied such small luxuries; and whether he will make it possible for parents to send such small gifts at reasonable rates.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: This sum of 9s. represents a considerable concession, since a similar packet sent by air at the normal rates would cost 30s. If the delay in sending the packet by sea were accepted, the cost would be only ll½d. The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes under the Forces Parcel Service provide facilities for a whole variety of gift parcels to be sent to men serving in Korea.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that that will give no consolation to the people in the country? I have a letter in my hand in which a woman states that she was actually asked for 25s. for sending an Easter egg to her husband. Could the hon. Gentleman's Department not show some more humanity in cases like this?

Mr. Hutchison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of sending parcels and mail to Korea is already very highly subsidised, and it was for that purpose that the Forces Parcels Scheme was introduced whereby an individual in this country could pay at this end and a man at the other end would get the present.

Mr. Murray: This boy has never been out of his house in his life before, and yet he cannot have half a pound of Coronation sweets to celebrate the Coronation while we are spending millions of money in this country on the same kind of thing. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Essex Regiment (Married Quarters)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for the accommodation of the wives and families of men serving in the Essex Regiment, at present living in married quarters in Germany but due to return to the United Kingdom when these soldiers are posted to Korea.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Arrangements are being made for those families who


cannot find accommodation for themselves to use the families hostels in this country.

Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say if it is correct, as these families believe, that if they had been in married quarters in this country they would have been allowed to stay on in them until they had found proper accommodation for themselves, and can he say whether it is also the case that there are 30 or 40 families who will be required to find their own accommodation—which it is very difficult for them to do?

Mr. Hutchison: It is true that when soldiers are sent to Korea from this country we do what we can to leave the families in the accommodation in which they are, but sometimes they also have to be accommodated in the families hostel camps. I am aware that we are asking some of the families to try to find their own accommodation when they get here, but none of them will be left stranded.

Mr. Driberg: Why should there be this discrimination against Service men and their families serving in Germany as compared with this country? If it is because of the shortage of married quarters there, is there not also a great pressure on accommodation here?

Mr. Hutchison: It arises from the shortage of available married quarters.

Mr. McAddeo: Can my hon. Friend say if there is any accommodation available in the married quarters at Warley and Colchester, and if not, will he make representations to the housing authorities in Essex to try to do something to help in this matter?

Mr. Hutchison: I should really have to have notice of that.

Film (Argyll Regiment)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what extra pay has been given to the soldiers of the Argyll Regiment for taking part in the production of Mr. Walt Disney's film Rob Roy.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Are we to understand that the troops of the Argyll Regiment were given voluntarily to Mr. Walt Disney, and is he aware that the local Home Guard

think that Mr. Walt Disney would be a far better director of military operations than the present Secretary of State for War?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Undersecretary be a little more frank with the House and at least confirm whether or not the War Office were receiving the sum of 25s. per day per soldier from the film company concerned, which sum is to be retained by the War Office?

Mr. Hutchison: The War Office, of course, received some remuneration for the use of these soldiers and the War Office pay the soldiers their ordinary Service pay. I should have to have notice from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the actual figure which he gave.

Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what the situation of these soldiers will be if they suffer from an accident in the course of these operations?

Mr. Hutchison: I shall have to have notice of that question. These men are volunteers. They volunteered for this work.

KENYA (MASSACRE, UPLANDS)

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make with regard to the massacre at Uplands, near Nairobi, on Thursday last.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): On the night of Thursday, 26th March, a number of Mau Mau gangs attacked simultaneously in an area about six miles by three in the Uplands District, about 25 miles from Nairobi. The attacks were carefully planned. The method adopted was to wire up huts from the outside, set fire to the roofs and cut down the people with axes and swords as they tried to escape from the windows. Between 40 and 50 huts were burned. Of their inhabitants, 71 were murdered, 51 are still missing, and 50 were wounded.
Most of the dead are women and children who were cut down as they ran through the maize plots. The heat of the fires was intense. Many people ran away in terror: often only the charred bodies of the victims were left. Thus it


is difficult to estimate the casualties with accuracy, and the final figures will probably prove higher than those I have given.
About 2,000 inhabitants of the location have been screened and some hundreds have been detained, of whom at least 150 have been identified by survivors as having taken part in the massacre. A large party of police and an extra company of the King's African Rifles are now conducting an extensive investigation in the area. About the same time a gang attacked Naivasha Police Station and killed three constables and some prisoners. They were unable to break into the police armoury but forced the adjoining Kenya Police Reserve armoury and stole about 30.303 rifles, 18 Lanchester sub-machine guns and a double-barrelled shot gun, and some rifle and revolver ammunition. While the attack on the police station was going on, another part of the gang released 137 remanded prisoners of whom some 50 have since been recaptured or have returned of their own accord. Military and police forces are now combing the district.
I am sure that the House will wish to express their deepest sympathy with all the victims of this outrage. The Governor informs me that every possible step is being taken both to follow up the criminals and to prevent a recurrence of these hideous crimes.

Mr. Paget: Whereas previously we have had sporadic criminality from Mau Mau, the diversionary attack upon the police station and the planned attack by three columns is a quite large-scale military operation and involves a new situation which is well calculated to demonstrate the impotence of the Government to protect their friends and the power of Mau Mau to destroy their enemies. Does not this situation call for very urgent action?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. Let me reply to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question by saying that certainly the situation has taken on a new phase and that raids by armed gangs have taken the place of sporadic assassinations. All measures possible have been taken. There is no doubt that the situation there is now of a semi-military character and is more like a war than an emergency.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I associate myself, as I am sure every hon. Member of the House does, with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in conveying our deepest sympathy to all those who suffered from this very savage outbreak? Two questions are disturbing correspondents in Kenya. One is whether the Home Guard are as adequately equipped as they could be and ought to be to deal with savage attacks of this kind. The second is whether the reserves are becoming overcrowded by people flocking there from other areas.

Mr. Lyttelton: Perhaps I might answer the last question first, about migration. This is a matter which causes great anxiety, as much of the migration into the Kikuyu Reserve is voluntary. The Government are doing what they can to check it, but rumours are spread around that those who are not in the reserve will receive no share in the White Highlands when the Europeans have been driven out and that unless the Kikuyu return to the reserves the Royal Commission will not recommend further grants of land. The Government are doing what they can to see that migrations take place in a controlled manner through the transit camps.
The first question related to the equipment of the Home Guard. There is no doubt that while these forces are being built up some improvement is highly desirable in this direction, and we are doing all we can to see that it is made.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: In view of the fact that the great majority of the victims of Mau Mau have been Africans, as is indicated so tragically in this incident, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Kenya Government to accept the offers of African leaders to take their part in the campaign against Mau Mau?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a question that the hon. Gentleman has asked before, particularly with regard to the holding of meetings, and he should know that it is open to any African leader to ask the Kenya Government to permit him to hold a meeting of supporters. No such application has been made by any African leader.

Mr. J. Hynd: Some time ago I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied that adequate protection was being given to loyal Kikuyu after the chief had been murdered in hospital, and I was assured


that adequate steps were being taken. We now have a further and much more serious incident and the Minister simply tells us that he is satisfied from the Governor's report that everything is done to prevent a recurrence. Can he tell us precisely what that means, and what steps are being taken?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman what I mean. There are 5,000 or 6,000 troops in this area and they are being strongly reinforced; about 12,000 police and about 10,000 Home Guard. I cannot give any guarantee in the course of operations about incidents of this kind, but I can say that everything humanly possible is being done.

Mr. Alport: As this incident indicates the existence of a strong central organisation of the movement, can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the form of that central command?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir, I cannot give any evidence of it except to say that these two incidents appear to have been carefully planned.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the security and intelligence arrangements in Kenya are adequate and that we are likely to have warning of any movement that may spread further and involve Kenya in other problems of this character?

Mr. Lyttelton: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the intelligence and security services have been reorganised in accordance with recommendations made by Sir Percy Sillitoe. I am never satisfied in any territory that the intelligence is all that it might be. We must keep it under constant pressure.

Miss Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many daily papers, weekly or other journals, written for Africans by Africans, are still permitted?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should have to have notice of that.

Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the first occasion on which an organised and planned

attack upon a public building has been made by Mau Mau?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, I do not think that would be quite accurate. There has been evidence of some concentrated gang attacks other than this, but this is perhaps the first time that several simultaneous attacks have taken place.

Mr. Paget: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I shall ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House Standing Order No. 9 to discuss this matter. In my submission—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must do that at the proper time. We have another Private Notice Question.

Later—

Mr. Paget: I desire to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, in order that we may discuss the massacre which occurred at Uplands. In my submission, there can be no question that this is a definite event. Equally, there can be no doubt that it is important. A massacre on this scale, even in these dreadful times, must be important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is arguing it a little prematurely. He ought to bring up his notice of Motion.

Mr. Bowles: Before you give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, will you hear a submission from one or two other hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the massacre of loyal subjects of the Crown at Uplands, near Nairobi, in Kenya, on Thursday last. Has the hon. and learned Member the support of the House?

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public import-ance), until Seven o'clock this evening.

AUSTIN COMPANY (DISPUTE)

Sir E. Boyle: Sir E. Boyle (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the Austin motor dispute.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Yes, Sir. As the House will be aware, the stoppage of work at Austins began on 17th February, and up till yesterday the intervention or assistance of my Department was not sought by either party. The other unions concerned within the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions had recommended to the National Union of Vehicle Builders that they should consider asking me for the appointment of a court of inquiry, but the union decided instead to approach the Trades Union Congress.
On Monday, 23rd March, the company announced its intention of discharging any employees who had not returned to work by Friday, and in accordance with this decision 1,583 men were discharged. On Saturday, the union decided to take certain measures for widening and intensifying the stoppage. It was in these circumstances that I received yesterday a request from the union to set up a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, and my Department at once communicated with the parties concerned in order that I might be informed of their views.
Discussions are proceeding and I will make a further statement before the House rises for the Easter Recess.

Sir E. Boyle: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the public interest is best to be served by an inquiry into this long-drawn-out trade dispute?

Sir W. Monckton: I quite follow the point which my hon. Friend makes, but I take the view that it is better that discussions, and opportunity for discussions, should precede a decision.

Mr. Isaacs: May I ask the Minister whether the party making application to the Minister for a court of inquiry have given any indication of their intention of resuming work while the inquiry is going on? In that event, would he approach

the management of the firm with a view to their withdrawing the dismissal notices if such an arrangement were made?

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The union concerned has approached me to order a court of inquiry. That is all they have asked for, and that is the proposition I am now considering.

Mr. Edelman: As the application comes from the union, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in the meantime, use his restraining influence with the British Motor Corporation to prevent them from taking any further reckless action which might have the effect of spreading the strike throughout the industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I am sure that the hon. Member would be among the first to realise that the sort of point he has been making is one which is part of the discussions taking place now. I do not want to add anything to what I have said on the main point. I shall be ready, with permission, to answer a Question on Thursday which has been put down on this matter, even if it is not reached.

Mr. Sevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is no more effective way of producing a strike than to give notice to workmen on the grounds of redundancy, and then to re-employ some and not re-employ others who are available for the work and who have a claim to it on grounds of seniority; and that this is calculated almost to cause stoppages? While not wishing at all to prejudice this inquiry, unless hon. Gentlemen want to have a series of strikes all over the country will the right hon. and learned Gentleman call the attention of the employers' representatives on the Industrial Advisory Council to the necessity, where men are put off and re-employed, that they should be re-employed in such a manner as to give a sense of justice and equity to all the men concerned?

Sir W. Monckton: I am very well aware of the necessity of giving a sense of justice and equity to all the men concerned. I am equally aware of the necessity of giving a sense of justice to both parties who are interested in a dispute of this sort. It would not be wise for me to take any particular point by itself. If there is to be a court of inquiry I had better not give judgment before I hear evidence.

Mr. Chapman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any reason to believe that the management is willing to accept and to abide by the findings of a court of inquiry? After all, the men have said that they will. Has the management given any assurance to the Ministry on those lines? Secondly, can the Minister confirm or deny that the management is now threatening to dismiss other workers who refuse to perform work regarded as "black" by the National Union of Vehicle Builders?

Sir W. Monckton: The right to set up an inquiry of this sort, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, does not depend upon the consent of the parties. Those applying in this case, for reasons which I well understand, have said that they will follow whatever the recommendations of a court would be. I have not asked for, and, therefore, I have not received, any undertaking of a comparable kind from the other side. What I want to do is to get the views of those concerned and then to decide for myself whether the court ought to be set up. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no knowledge of the matter to which he has drawn attention but I will make it my business to get it.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not decided to set up a court of inquiry immediately, we are entitled to ask questions in the House on the matter, however controversial they might appear to be. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing at the moment is having discussions. Will he, therefore, represent to the employers concerned in all parts of the country that as there is short-time working going on in some places, and as men are being put off on grounds of redundancy, they ought not to provoke strikes of this sort?

Sir W. Monckton: I hope that I always make it plain to employers and others that the last thing I want to do is to see action taken which will provoke strikes. I want now to provoke a settlement, and I do not think that any criticism by me of the parties at a moment's notice like this is likely to have that effect. That is the only reason. I am not for a moment suggesting that it is improper to put controversial questions but I desire, if I can, to remain in a judicial position.

Mr. Poole: In view of the fact that there are over 1,000 men now who have been thrown out of employment and dismissed by this firm, is not speed the essence of a settlement here? Would not the Minister be well advised to set up a court of inquiry at once, unless he wants an extension of this dispute?

Sir W. Monckton: Speed is certainly the essence of this matter. On 12th March, I indicated my readiness to consider any efforts, any approach which might be made to me to conciliate. The matter reached me for the first time yesterday. I at once got into touch with all parties concerned. The discussions are taking place today. I propose to make a decision by Thursday. I do not think that I am lacking in speed.

Mr. Yates: While appreciating the Minister's prompt manner in dealing with this matter, may I ask him whether he will take into consideration—and I am speaking as one who has lived in this area for many years—the very deep-seated feeling there is about the methods by which redundancy is considered by this factory? Will he also bear in mind the deep-seated resentment there is in the City of Birmingham at the recent action of this firm, which they do not feel is justified, in discharging 1,583 men?

Sir W. Monckton: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are, plainly, matters which will have to be borne in mind by anyone who is making a decision on this case.

Mr. Summers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, before this episode is concluded, take a look at the regulations affecting the withholding of unemployment pay so far as it may affect those who are anxious and willing to take a job but are prevented, through no fault of their own or anyone else, from the means of occupying one?

Sir W. Monckton: I am well aware of some of the difficulties that arise in that connection, but fortunately for me there are limits to what falls within the scope of the Department concerned, and I shall have to take up that matter with one of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. McGovern: If I understood the Minister aright he said that the strike had lasted for a month before the trade union


took any action. Is it not deplorable that a strike of this magnitude should be allowed to continue for so long before any effective action is taken? Is it not about time, in order to prevent a recurrence of this nature, that there should be some automatic arbitration on matters of this kind?

Sir W. Monckton: It would be dangerous to assume that responsible people in the trade union movement did not take interest in this matter. The matter went from the trade union concerned to the confederation in which that union has a part. It was two or three times considered there before it came to the Trades Union Congress. I do not think that there was any lack of interest in dealing with it.

MEMBERS' SALARIES

Mr. Lewis: I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the opportunity of making a correction in connection with a Parliamentary Question to which the Treasury gave me an answer on Friday last, 27th March. I asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer

could give the net and gross incomes that would be necessary for a Member of Parliament today to receive the same purchasing value in his salary as a Member of Parliament received in 1911.

The answer, in columns 119 and 120 of HANSARD, states that in 1911–12 a Member of Parliament received a net income of £391 and that it would be necessary for a Member today to receive a net income of £1,408 to be on a par with the Member in 1911. Correspondingly, the gross income was given to me as a figure of £1,229. Obviously, this figure could not have been correct, and I have now been notified by the Treasury that inadvertently, through a typist's error, that figure of £1,229 should be £1,829.*

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 213.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H.
Galbraith Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Alport, C. J. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Galbraith, T. G D. (Hillhead)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cole, Norman
Godber, J. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Colegate, W. A.
Gough, C. F. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gower, H. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimond, J.


Barber, Anthony
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harden, J. R. E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Deedes, W. F.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heath, Edward


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bossom, A. C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bowen, E. R.
Drayson, G. B.
Hollis, M. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Holt, A. F.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hope, Lord John


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Errell, F. J.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fell, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fisher, Nigel
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hurd, A. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Fort, R.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Foster, John
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Carr, Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Cary, Sir Robert
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


* Correction made in col. 120.




Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Kaberry, D.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nicholls, Harmar
Stewart, Henderson (Fill, E.)


Kerr, H. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lambert, HOT. G.
Nutting, Anthony
Storey, S.


Lambton, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Odey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Studholme, H. G.


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Summers, G. S.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Linstead, H. N.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Testing, W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pickthorne, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Tilney, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Profumo, J. D.
Turner H. F. L.


McAdden, S. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Turten, R. H.


McCallum, Major D.
Rayner, Brig, R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Redmayne, M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Remnant, Hon. P.



McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vesper, D. F.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Wade, D. W.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Watkinson, H. A.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wellwood, W.


Markham, Major S. F.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Roohdale)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Shepherd, William
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wills, G.


Maude, Angus
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wood, Hon. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
York, C


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Snadden, W. McN.



Mellor, Sir John
Soames, Capt. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molson, A. H. E.
Spearman, A. C. M
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Speir, R. M.





NOES


Adams, Richard
Carmichael, J.
Follick, M.


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Foot, M. M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J.
Forman, J. C


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Chapman, W. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Awbery, S. S.
Coldrick, W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Bacon, Miss Alice
Collick, P. H.
Gibson, C. W.


Baird, J.
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, James


Balfour, A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bartley, P.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bence, C. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grey, C. F.


Benn, Wedgwood
Daines, P.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benson, G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Beswick, F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hamilton, W. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Hannan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Donnelly, D. L
Hargreaves, A.


Boardman, H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hastings, S.


Bowden, H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hayman, F. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Edelman, M.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Brockway, A F.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hobson, C. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holman, P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fienburgh, W.
Houghton, Douglas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Finch, H. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)







Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Murray, J. D
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Nally, W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Jager, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Janes, David (Hartlepool)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Keenan, W.
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kenyon, C.
Peart, T. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Poole, C. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Porter, G.
Timmons, J.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lewis, Arthur
Proctor, W T.
Wallace, H. W.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pryde, D. J.
Webb, Rt Hon. M. (Bradford. C)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Logan, D. G.
Reeves, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
West, D. G.


McGhee, H. G
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


McGovern, J.
Rhodes, H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


McInnes, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whiteley, Rl. Hon. W.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Royle, C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Short, E. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Manuel, A. C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith. S.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Mellish, R J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, J.
Yates, V. F.


Monslow, W.
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.



Morley, R.
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Merris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Steele, T.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. K. Robinson.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day three months."
I understand that three months is the necessary form and, whilst we might have been content with somewhat less than that period, it does not suffer from being on the wrong side as far as we are concerned. I want to appeal very strongly to the Prime Minister, as well as to the Leader of the House on a matter which is of considerable Parliamentary importance.
I will give the history of how these Amendments were received. The Bill had its Third Reading in another place as late as Thursday. The Lords Amendments were not received in the Vote Office, and could not very well be received in the Vote Office of the House of Commons, until Friday. It is the case that some of my hon. Friends asked in the Vote Office for the Bill as it went to their Lordships' House, without which, of course, it was not possible properly to consider the Lords Amendments, and that Bill was not available in the Vote Office to some of my hon. Friends. There may have been a mistake, but there it was—or rather there it was not.
That, in itself, is a very serious thing. The Lords Amendments were not in the Vote Office until Friday morning. I want to be fair and I admit that there was available to a limited number of us on the Front Opposition Bench some duplicated copies through the usual channels, but the last of those did not come until late on Thursday and that does not alter the fact that whatever is supplied privately to the Front Bench does not meet the point of view of the House as a whole.
Therefore, I start with the point that the Lords Amendments were not available in the Vote Office until Friday

morning. The House was counted out, on the initiative of an hon. Member opposite, on Friday about one o'clock. Clearly, there was not time on that day for the responsible leaders of the Opposition, or for anyone else on the Opposition side, to consider what Amendments to the Lords Amendments should be drafted. The House was dispersed; hon. Members went to their homes and their constituencies and Friday was ineffective for this purpose.
The next day was Saturday, the day that followed was Sunday and the House did not sit on Monday for sad reasons, with which the House is familiar. So Monday was not an effective Parliamentary day and it was impossible adequately to get together with one's hon. Friends interested in the Bill and make proper preparations for the proceedings which are before us today.
I submit to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House that, in these circumstances, it is quite unfair to the House of Commons, and quite contrary to good Parliamentary tradition and usage, to consider these Amendments today. I beg them, on the basis of elementary Parliamentary decency, not to proceed with the consideration of the Lords Amendments today. Moreover— I say this with some hesitation and I will not dwell upon it—this is an unhappy day on which to be involved in the series of highly controversial debates which are bound to arise. For that reason alone I think it undesirable to take these Amendments today.
We were informed that our Amendments to their Lordships Amendments had to be with the Public Bill Office by 4.30 p.m. yesterday, because the House was not sitting. In the ordinary way the Amendments to the Amendments need not have been in until the rising of the House. So we were at that additional disadvantage. Not only was Friday ineffective, but Monday, which was substantially ineffective, would have been wholly ineffective as well, had I not asked some of my hon. Friends to consult me about this. Even then, the Amendments had to be in by 4.30 p.m., instead of at the rising of the House. These are all material points which have made a farce of Parliamentary procedure on these Amendments.
The House is in no proper condition to proceed to the consideration of the Lords Amendments themselves. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, indeed, hon. Members on this side of the House and anybody else —except those of us who drafted them— have not until this morning at the earliest, seen the Amendments to the Amendments which we propose. I submit, therefore, that the House will be proceeding to debate the Amendments from another place and the proposed Amendments to them without having had an opportunity to study them.
The important feature of Parliamentary procedure is that the House should know what it is doing. Hon. Members cannot know what they are doing if mere is not a reasonable time between the circulation of papers and Amendments and the discussion on them. I doubt whether the Minister himself has had adequate time to consider these Amendments to the Amendments. Presumably they were not in his hands until yesterday evening at any rate, and officially they were not printed and available until this morning.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have spent the last five hours on them. They were nearly all very old friends.

Mr. Morrison: That will not do. If he is proposing to adopt that attitude of contempt at this early stage, the Minister is not being a sensible Parliamentarian. He is being unwise. What he means is that he has given a fleeting glance at these Amendments. He has just been to the office and said, "I don't care what the Opposition have put down. Away with them. I will oppose the lot." That is the consideration which the Minister has given. I submit that though this may be "smart Alec stuff" it is not a good Parliamentary policy.
All through the proceedings on this Bill the Minister of Transport has not treated the House of Commons fairly, I do. not support the Minister of Supply. I thoroughly dislike his Bill. But if we contrast these two Ministers in their handling of two Bills involving a similar principle, the Minister of Supply was much more competent than the Minister of Transport. That is well known.
A number of substantial Amendments have been put down by their Lordships. There are some new Clauses. In some

cases they represent policies which, in part, we urged upon the Minister. One proposed new Clause could have been a Bill and ought to have had consideration by the House in Committee and on Report. All the Minister said was, "I will consider the matter, and, if necessary, something may happen in another place." He did not tell us what he was going to do. We had no opportunity of debating it. Time after time the Minister set aside the House of Commons. He almost ignored us. He adopted an attitude of contempt. He proceeded on the basis that he was proposing to do things in another place.
Another place has its job to do. I consider it to be a body of considerable ability when revising legislation. But we cannot accept it as a substitute for the House of Commons. These Amendments of substance have now to be considered by us as though it were substantive legislation before the House of Commons for the first time. As we were not able to consider them in Committee or on Report, we must give them adequate consideration now.
There is another difficulty which affects you, Mr. Speaker. The Government have been unfair to the Chair in involving us in a situation whereby the Chair could not see these Amendments until this morning at the earliest. I am not sure that you, Sir, could have seen them even this morning. I submit that that is not treating the Chair properly, because the Chair has to decide what Amendments to accept —and possibly what Amendments should not be accepted, although I hope there will not be many of those. However, the Chair has that direct responsibility and I submit that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have not treated the Chair properly.
The House must not think that we have put down these Amendments merely to use up time. Indeed, they cannot think that, because in the case of the Labour Government's Transport Bill the consideration of the Lords Amendments was not completed until 10.20 a.m. on the following morning. Therefore, the Government knew that the Lords Amendments to a Bill of this nature were liable to take a long time. They must have regarded it as legitimate to involve the House in the consideration


of those other Amendments until 10.20 a.m., and it is obvious that the consideration of these Amendments will take a substantial amount of time.
Now we have had another event which is a further reason for not considering these Amendments today. At seven o'clock our proceedings will be interrupted under Standing Order No. 9 and we cannot resume until ten o'clock if the Adjournment debate goes for the full time. Then we start again. In all these circumstances, and on a day such as this, I put it to the Government that we ought not to proceed today with the consideration of the Lords Amendments.
The Third Reading of the 1947 Bill was on Tuesday, 15th July, and the Lords Amendments were not taken until 23rd July, eight days later. In this case the Third Reading was on 26th March and the Lords Amendments are being taken today, five days after. But the intervening period has been substantially ineffective for proper Parliamentary purposes. In the circumstances, I ask that we should not be pressed to proceed with the consideration of these Amendments today.
If it was a matter of urgent public importance that the Bill should reach the Statute Book by Easter I could understand the position. But whatever may be thought about the merits of the Bill— we think that it is a bad Bill and, presumably, hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is a good one—there is no urgency for its being on the Statute Book before Easter. I should have thought that it would have been good enough if the Government got the Bill this Session.
The Government will merely be standing on a basis of rather obstinate false dignity if they try to force consideration of the Bill today. The Amendments could easily be handled later. I know that the Budget comes after Easter, but this Bill could be dealt with possibly between the Budget and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. It is not essential in the public interest that the Bill should be dealt with before Easter.
Whatever may be thought of the merits of the Lords Amendments, or of our Amendments to them, there is one consideration which I always thought united this House and that is respect for the

proper conduct of our Parliamentary institutions. I think that it must be accepted, by the Prime Minister at any rate, that I have proved that we have not been treated in time on this matter and that, owing to the circumstances of the sad bereavement with which we are all familiar and certain consequences that followed from it, it has been utterly impossible to consider properly the Amendments from the other place and our Amendments to them.
I earnestly plead with the House, and especially with the Prime Minister who, as I have said before, I regard as a Parliamentarian—a man who has the Parliamentary spirit. I think he will see the point that it is impossible for the House to be effective in considering these matters today and that to do so will do an injury to the prestige and the rights of Parliament. I trust that the Government will be good enough to accept the proposal which I have made.

4.23 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): We have listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said. Perhaps the House will now allow me to put the other side of the picture. I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that there have been difficulties in the circumstances of the last few days, but those circumstances were known at the time when this business was set down for today. There is no surprise about it—none at all.

Mr. H. Morrison: There was.

Mr. Crookshank: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me. May I make my case?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is saying something that is not true. This was announced on Thursday. It was not known then that Her late Majesty was dead.

Mr. Crookshank: It was.

Mr. Morrison: It was not known until Thursday night. Therefore, it was not known that the House would not meet on Monday.

Mr. Crookshank: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman because I thought that he had a point to make. I should like to repeat exactly what I said on


Thursday which was, of course, subsequent to the sad event. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition I said:
Yes, Sir. In view of the Lying-in-State in Westminster Hall of Her late Majesty Queen Mary, the House will not meet on Monday next.
Then I said that the business would be consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill. I added:
These Amendments are expected to be received from another place during the course of today's Sitting.
The fact of the matter is—

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry about that. I made an error in the day. The right hon. Gentleman is right. He will appreciate, of course, that it is still true that we had not got the Amendments at that point. We had not seen the measure of the job which was to be put before us on the Tuesday.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has made his case. I ask him to let me make the case for the Government. I have just read that I said on Thursday:
These Amendments are expected to be received from another place during the course of today's Sitting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 840.]

Mr. G. Lindgren: They were not.

Mr. Crookshank: They were.

Mr. Lindgren: We did not have them.

Mr. Crookshank: They were received by this House though, and they were in the Vote Office by Friday morning. That is the normal procedure.
I hope that I may be allowed to explain what the situation was and is. The fact remains—the right hon. Gentleman knows it and everybody else knows it—that the business for the week was made known at the usual time. There were conversations, as there always are, before that. When I made the statement on Thursday about these Amendments being taken today no representations were made by anybody in this House or anywhere else.
The Leader of the Opposition, upon whom the duty normally falls if exchanges are to be made on the Floor of the House, said nothing. If any pressure is put upon us, if a case is made or even if a question is asked, I am always only too anxious to consider the matter, but not a single word was said on this subject.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Crookshank: No. I propose to explain what happened.
As a matter of fact, all the Leader of of the Opposition inquired about was the procedure on the Leasehold Property Bill, which I explained and he was good enough to say that that would be satisfactory. So we had not one word about the Amendments to the Transport Bill at a time when, if there had been any feeling, I should have expected to have heard about it.
This complaint is made a little late in the day. If there really was any strong feeling about it it should have been expressed then. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is shaking his head meaning that there was no strong feeling, that may be the explanation—

Mr. James Callaghan: May I make it clear to the Leader of the House that I was not shaking my head to indicate that there were no strong feelings but to indicate that, as soon as we saw the size and number of the Amendments, representations were made through the usual channels last Friday to try to get the situation altered and the business put back? We were told that it was not possible to do that.

Mr. Crookshank: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. It is true that we received a message, but it was too late to do anything because the House had risen and the business bad already been put down. Therefore, those representations were out of time. But the fact remains that the number of Amendments coming from the other place, and their quality, could not have been unknown to hon. Gentlemen who were following the Bill. They were not all passed on the last day of the consideration of the Bill by the other place.
As always on these Measures, a number of hon. Gentlemen who are interested in what is going on attend the Sittings of the other place. They are well aware of what is happening and the kind of Amendments which this House will eventually be asked to consider. That is always so.

Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: We have to sit in two Houses now?

Mr. Crookshank: Not at all. We do not ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to sit in either. I am merely saying that that is the normal practice for hon. Gentlemen who are interested in a certain piece of legislation. Of course, we are bound to be in difficulties when, for any reason, the House does not sit. That is accepted.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The point which the right hon. Gentleman has just made must strike the Prime Minister as extraordinary. What the right hon. Gentleman has now suggested is that we had more time than we alleged because hon. Gentlemen knew what was happening in the other place. Can we now reverse the position and say that, as the other place has now got some Members interested in what is happening in the House of Commons, we ought not to give them any notice either about legislation?

Mr. Crookshank: That is a very clever remark, but I do not quite take the point.
I am merely speaking from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen who have been following this legislation, and I was only saying that, on the number of Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a large number, and that was the only point with which I was dealing at the time. I merely said that hon. Gentlemen who were interested in this legislation probably had a very good idea of the number of Amendments that would be coming along. If they had not, and if they had been curious enough to ask me, I should have been able to have given them that information myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to put the case. I quite realise the difficulties which have arisen in this particular case. I am only trying to put to the House how the matter arose.
On Thursday, when the announcement was made, there was no protest, no complaint. Not a word was said against our proceeding with this business today, although it was known that the House was not going to sit yesterday, and, therefore, the usual opportunities which would have been open had the House been sitting were not going to be there. All that was known, and there was no surprise element about it. As far as I can see from what the right hon. Gentlemen has said, the only surprise element was the number of Amendments with which

we were confronted on Friday evening. In reply to that, I say that the number was not at all an unknown number, and, indeed, I am certain that it was, in fact, known to many hon. Members.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman must not get irritated if he gets interventions now and again. It is part of what we are all paid for. May I put this to him? Is he not now advancing the doctrine, not that there is a responsibility on the authorities of the House or the Government to print and circulate the Lords Amendments—that is not the official act—but of passing the responsibility for knowing all about Lords Amendments that may come down to us on to every Member of the House who has to discharge his own responsibilities?
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we could not know adequately on Friday the whole picture and that I did make representations through such channels as were available to me, putting forward our point of view, but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, because the House rose early on Friday, no effective action could be taken. All these are reasons for the Government reconsidering the situation. Their dignity will not suffer, but the dignity of the House of Commons will be enhanced if they will give way.

Mr. Crookshank: That is a matter of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I am not laying down any doctrine; I am merely stating the facts of the case.
I pass now to the second argument which the right hon. Gentleman put. That was that five days was an inordinately short time between the receipt of the Amendments from another place and their discussion in this House—that it was an inordinately short time to discuss Amendments to a Bill of this magnitude.

Mr. Morrison: I said effectively.

Mr. Crookshank: It depends whether they are effective or not. Sometimes, the fact that the House is not sitting makes it more effective for those who are concerned in working out Amendments, and they have more leisure to do so than would otherwise be the case, especially at week-ends. That is a matter for consideration.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was saying that, when his Government's Transport Bill came to this House, there were, in fact, eight days between the consideration of the Lords Amendments and the return of the Bill from the House of Lords, that that is quite true in that particular case, but there were also over 240 Lords Amendments, which was more than three times the number which we have to consider on this occasion, so that that is not a very good analogy. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to cast his mind back to other cases of major Bills—of a nationalisation character and others—he will find that this occurred at the end of a Session in 1947. This is always apt to happen at the end of a Session or a section of a Session, because that is the time at which the House has more or less finished with legislation. In 1947, the length of time given for considering the Amendments was exactly the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is exactly the same in days, whether it happened in March or July.
In that year, on 31st July, this House received the Agriculture Bill and the Electricity Bill, both major Government Measures, and the Lords Amendments to the Agriculture Bill were taken on Monday, 4th August; that is to say, four days after its receipt. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many were there?"] There were over 70, just the same number as in this case. The Electricity Bill was also received on 31st July, and the Lords Amendments were taken on 8th August; that is to say, after five days, again the same as in this case. As to the number of Amendments, there were over 120, so that the right hon. Gentleman is not on very strong ground in saying that there are only five days available, because here were these two cases of major Measures coming simultaneously before the House, and in one case the interval was four days and in the other five days.
The fact is that it is always the experience when Amendments come from another place that there is not over-much time before the discussion, and that is the practice of the House and the Government of the day, whatever Government is in power, which hopes to get the Bill enacted, if it is to be enacted at all. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the hope of the Government to have the Bill enacted by Easter, and the number of days

available from the receipt of the Lords Amendments is not very different from what happened in the time when he was in charge of public business.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: What is the urgency of the Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: The urgency of the Bill is the desire of the Government to put it on the Statute Book, which is endorsed by a majority of this House and of another place, so far. So far, so good.
As a matter of fact, I understand from my right hon. Friend that about one-third of these Amendments are about matters which were of direct concern to the Opposition at the time when the Bill was going through its earlier stages, and, therefore, there does not seem to be anything in the nature of the Amendments which have come to us—I see that the Opposition have put down Amendments of their own to them—to which exception could be taken by the Opposition, judging by the debates which have taken place hitherto.
It is unfortunate that there should be an interruption of business at 7 o'clock, but that certainly cannot be put down to the responsibility of the Government. [Interruption.] It is not our fault that the Adjournment of the House is to be moved at 7 o'clock, because a sufficient number of hon. Gentlemen opposite stood up and demanded that it should be done; it was granted, but it was not our fault that it was to happen today.
In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, in view of the fact that it was known that this business was to be taken this week, despite the changes which have been necessary in business owing to the events of last week, and in view of the fact that no comments and no representations were made at the time —they were not made at the tune—it is necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to get this Bill as soon as we may. We have made good progress all through the year, and we therefore hope to get this Bill on the Statute Book this side of Easter.
It seems to me from what I have gathered about these particular Amendments that there is no particular reason why, if we apply our minds to them and go forward now, instead of having a long discussion on whether we shall discuss


them or not, we might make very good progress. I therefore hope that the House will reject the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman and accept the Motion to proceed with the Lords Amendments which has been moved by my right hon. Friend.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: It would be a great error if this House were to proceed with this matter under a misapprehension created, I am sure entirely unwittingly, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. From what he said, it is clear that he is all too unfamiliar with the procedure of another place, and we on this side feel that if steps were taken better to familiarise him with it by giving him a seat there so that he need not just watch the proceedings from the outside like one of those "near-peers" that he advises us all to be, the business of this House and that of another place would go more smoothly.
His main complaint was that my right hon. Friends did not complain of the number of Amendments when he announced the business. But, my Lord— [Laughter.] That comes of paying too great attention to the proceedings of another place. The point that the right hon. Gentleman entirely omitted was that in another place, unlike in this House, Amendments can be moved on Third Reading, and if he will examine the actual times—which are, fortunately, marked—he will find that he made his announcement before 3.50 and that it was not until 4.15 on Thursday that the Amendments in another place were being moved. So what is his complaint? It is that we did not know in advance that the Amendments were to be moved. He knew, but he did not bother to tell the House.
What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says that because he did not bother to tell the House the amount of the business, and because we could not know, owing to the fact that the Amendments had not been moved, we ought to have complained, and that, as he has pulled off a fast trick, we ought to sit down and think how clever he is. I do not think the House works in that way or that all hon. Members on this side should be converted into a kind of "near-peers." We already have some hon.

Members opposite who are as near "near-peers" as possible, and we do not think any more of this nearness. I think we are far better occupied dealing with the affairs of this House than snooping round trying to see what is being done elsewhere.
We on this side adhere to the original and ancient arrangements of this House and we do not take notice of the affairs of another place until they are officially communicated to us. The Bill was brought from the Lords on Thursday. It was ordered by this House to be printed on Thursday, and it was available on Friday, when the House sat and was counted out by the party opposite.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend to correct him on one point? The Bill was not available in this House on Friday, at least not at one o'clock.

Mr. Bing: The argument which is being quite seriously adduced by the right hon. Gentleman is that we should not have devoted ourselves to the other business—all the other business was unimportant—but should have been in the House of Lords preparing for this business. Why? Because every hon. Member on this side should have anticipated that some such trick as this would be played on us.
Normally speaking, there is no reason why hon. Members should concern themselves with what is happening in the House of Lords; they should wait until the Amendments are prepared and put before them in the normal form. The only reason they should run to the other place to see what is being moved is that they anticipate that they are to have the thing rushed on top of them at a moment's notice. That is the only reason anybody on this side should have gone to the House of Lords. I suppose that we on this side are to blame for believing that the right hon. Gentleman would lead the House in a proper manner. That is a vital assumption to make, but it is because we made that assumption that we did not run round to the House of Lords.
That was practically the only argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman why we should consider this matter tonight, other than that he had announced it. But that does not decide what this House decides. Fortunately, what the


right hon. Gentleman can announce is not what Parliament decides. All he can say is what the business is to be, and the business he announced was that a Motion would be moved to the effect that we should take the Lords Amendments into consideration. It is a question for this House to decide whether or not we should, and I hope that is a matter to which many of my hon. Friends will give a little time and attention.
The only other argument adduced was a short interuption from the Minister of Transport. He said, in regard to all these things, that they were very old friends— that was his argument—unless, of course, the right hon. Gentleman treats his very old friends in the same way as the party opposite treat their electors, making promises one moment and paying no attention to them the next. This is a very shabby way to treat the Lords Amendments.
To take the first of his very old friends, he forgot it entirely. What does the Amendment that we shall come to consider deal with? It is a matter, I should have thought, paramount in the mind of every hon. Gentleman opposite—property. We allowed this Bill to go through the House without containing any proper definition of "property," and this was a matter which obviously had to be looked at with very great care and attention in another place. I have here the actual passage, which I can quote, from the speech of the Earl of Selkirk who, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that this was a very important issue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think we are yet dealing with the Lords Amendments, and, therefore, we must only discuss whether we should discuss them now or not.

Mr. Bing: Exactly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that is the point to which my argument was devoted. I am only going to say that it may be necessary to ask you to accept a manuscript Amendment relating to this very issue of property. I think it would be far better if hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are far greater experts on property than I am, had an opportunity of examining the thing when they see it on paper rather than having a very complicated and long Amendment read out to them.
The only point I was going to make was that in another place a Bill of this sort is looked at in quite a different way from here. The point that occupied their Lordships on the first occasion was the nature of the property they were discussing. It was said on behalf of the Government, "Now that we are in the course of transfering property, particularly to companies, we wish the definition to be rather wider." That was their trouble, but when they came to the question of what was the property which they were to sell, then, of course, they had to have the definition rather narrower.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon and learned Gentleman is going beyond my Ruling. He must not discuss the Amendments now.

Mr. Bing: In that case, I shall, no doubt, have an opportunity of discussing this aspect of the matter later.
I only wish to add one or two arguments which I hope will appeal to the Leader of the House. I do not know how long hon. Members on this side have had the Amendments. I have an arrangement with the Vote Office by which I have the full Vote sent to me every morning, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends who take a great interest in the work of this House have a similar arrangement. I did not receive these Amendments this morning. Indeed, I had to ring the Vote Office at 9.30 a.m. in order to study the Amendments on the Paper, and I think that may have been happening in the case of many of my hon. Friends.
I do not blame the Vote Office in the least. The arrangements of this House are not geared to deal with procedural tricks of the type which the Leader of the House likes to play on Parliament. Therefore, it is quite impossible for the very able and very devoted servants of this House to be up to, and to gear their printing machines to, the chicanery of the right hon. Gentleman. That is one of the practical and technical problems which we must face in this House.
If that is so, it ought to be understood by other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that it really brings Parliament into contempt if the only place where there is not to be a Guillotine on discussion of the Transport Bill is another place; that


their Lordships can go into it at all the length that they like, and into exactly what is the right sort of property to suit property interests and every phase of property; that they are allowed all facilities to deal with it, yet when it comes to this House another Guillotine applies. It is not a Guillotine of time, because, fortunately, we have all this week and probably next week to discuss the Bill, but a Guillotine on opportunity to consider the Amendments. Incidentally, that is why I referred to the first Amendment, because we may be able to dispose of that one, at any rate, tonight.
It really brings the whole of Parliamentary procedure into contempt if we are to be told that another place can have as long as they like over this Measure. If this Measure needed to be passed before Easter, has the Leader of the House no influence in another place? Could he not have speeded up their proceedings a little, or is the time-table of this House to be adjusted to the dinner hour of their Lordships? That is what the Leader of the House is saying. It is quite true that their Lordships sat until midnight once—what an appalling imposition! But the procedure of this House, where things really matter, is to be fixed by a time-table dictated from another place. That is a most reactionary idea which is derogatory to the dignity of this House. It is possibly what we might expect from the Leader of the House, but not what we might expect from all other right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
I hope, therefore, that one or two voices will be raised on the other side of the House in favour of this House of Commons. We all know that many hon. and right hon. Members opposite have their eyes set on another place, but that should not prevent them in their transitory stay here from saying a word or two in favour of this House. It makes a mockery of democracy when we have long speeches about the value of democracy, when we are told that we have the most perfect democracy in this country, and then people who happen to be in another place through the hereditary principle decide things and we in this House cannot have a clear 24 hours to examine what they have decided but must vote on them straightaway. That is no

way to run a democracy, and it is one which I hope that this House will reject.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: One wants to be thoroughly reasonable in matters of procedure, but one expects a certain amount of reasonableness from the other side of the House. That something has gone very wrong here I should have thought ought to be obvious to any reasonable person. Quite apart from whose fault it may be, or the other reasons for it, what has gone wrong is that a very large number of hon. Members of this House were unable to see the Lords Amendments until Friday, and even a larger number were unable to see them at all until either Saturday, or, in some cases, today.
After all, these Amendments are 70 in number. They introduce substantial and important changes in an important Bill, and the Lords Amendments have had to be considered by the majority of hon. Members of this House at quite inadequate notice. The practical difficulty has been very much greater than that. These Amendments introduce not merely verbal changes, but whole new Clauses and new Schedules which will require consideration as important pieces of legislation and which, if they had been introduced in the Bill in the first instance, to some extent would have had that consideration in this House.
They were flung at us—that is really not too strong an expression—without any opportunity or time to consider them and under a threat, not made by any person but arising out of the situation, that any Amendments to them had to be brought in by 4.30 p.m. yesterday. One does not need to be an expert, one does not need to have any political prejudices to realise that that kind of thing is dead wrong and is grossly unfair to individual Members who want to do some work in connection with this Bill. The effect of it is to deprive hon. Members who are interested and the whole House of a proper opportunity of considering beforehand what they have to debate today.
I cannot exaggerate from my own point of view the extreme unfairness of conduct of that kind if it is attributable to anyone. Does any right hon. or hon. Member opposite really feel satisfied with what has happened, quite apart from the question of who is to blame or how it


happened? I cannot think that any right hon. or hon. Member opposite really thinks that this has been a proper procedure, fair to the House and to hon. Members and such as to enable us to discharge our duty to our constituents and to the country as a whole. I do not really believe that any right hon. or hot). Member can defend it.
I was exceedingly interested, as I always am, by the speech of the Leader of the House. I find him a fascinating study from the point of view of advocacy as well as other points of view. I hope that he will not mind my saying that his speech was altogether too clever to be remotely convincing. The reason was very simple. He did not really go into the merits of the case, the real difficulty into which we have been put, more than superficially. He did not attempt to defend any action of his or even attempt to give any reason for it. All that he tried to do in quite a long address to the House was simply to say, "Even if I did the wrong thing you did not put me right." That is a really remarkable view of the business of the Government.
I should have thought that the Government as a whole, and the Leader of the House in particular, had some responsibility for sustaining the institutions and decencies of Parliamentary democracy. They have not dotted the country with constitutional clubs for nothing, but when they go into those clubs, or their supporters do, they have to blush for what has been done by the Tory Party in this connection.
It is pertinent to remember that this Bill was forced through this House by the Guillotine. It was, therefore, all the more in need of some Amendments when it reached another place; and when the Bill comes back to this House the more is the need that those Amendments should have full and proper consideration. In those circumstances we were told on Thursday that Amendments which had not then been completely passed would be considered by this House today. We were not told how many there were. There are, in fact, no fewer than 70 on the Order Paper.
We were not told, of course, the nature or character of the Amendments. We are now told, "That is your fault. You ought to have run along to another place to see for yourselves." Apparently quite

a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are so busily engaged in doing that that they expect us to do the same. I can only reply that I find it hard enough already to do my work in this place and I do not consider that I ought to be expected to run along to another place to listen, even for the short time of the day during which the other place is in active operation, to the momentous words of those who sit there.
Are Members of Parliament nowadays supposed to be completely full-time Members? Is there no right hon. or hon. Member opposite who, when he was in Opposition, was engaged in other comparatively lucrative employments? Is there no hon. Member opposite now who has not other things to do besides his duties here? Do we really wish that Parliament should be solely composed of whole-time Members, whole-time Members of an athletic character engaged during a large part of the afternoon in attempting to be in two places at once? That sort of thing needs only a little examination for anyone to realise that a thinner excuse was never put up from the Front Bench by any Government for what has been, in effect, a silly muddle and one which is grossly unfair to this House as a whole and to hon. Members.
The next thing that was said was, "Oh, you were just as bad." The right hon. Gentleman, or someone on his behalf, has raked through the history of legislation to find cases with which he could compare this one. I am getting rather tired of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite defending the preposterous by attempting to show that it was also done by the Labour Party when it was in power. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that it was so done. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite really resigned to setting as the very highest standard that they can attain in these matters the very lowest standard that we ever attained? Are they really saying to the country that that is the very best they can do, and that, however ridiculous, however inconvenient, however hostile to every principle of democracy some piece of procedure is, it can always be defended if only one can say that something like it was done by the Opposition?
That is Conservatism in essence. Conservatives never advance, never get any


better; they stand by the worst traditions of the past and defend themselves by saying, "Oh, this was done before by someone else."I did not think we had relapsed to quite those depths, but that was the right hon. Gentleman's second line of defence, and he had no more than the two. He said, first, "You might have told me on Thursday I was doing the wrong thing," and at the end of it he said, "If you call me black, you have at any rate been a dark grey in the past." The dignity of those arguments will not, I feel sure, appeal to his own supporters, it certainly ought not to appeal to the House and it certainly ought not to appeal to the country.
Let us look a little at what really ought to be done. What is the reason for this indecent haste to apply the Guillotine to us in the early stages of the Bill and then to force us to deal with Lords Amendments which we obviously have not had time to consider properly? The only reason is that the Government wish—we had it from the right hon. Gentleman himself—to get the Bill before Easter. The Government might have had some regard to things which have been happening in the country.
If the Parliamentary time-table has been interfered with, it has been interfered with by the floods, which the right hon. Gentleman will find as difficult to control as did his predecessor in office, King Canute. It has also been interfered with by other matters, to which I will make no detailed reference, which are well in the mind of the House, and which are, of course, beyond the control of mortal man, be he right hon. or hon. Gentleman or not.
Surely when the Government lay out for themselves a nice tidy time-table and say to their supporters, to the road hauliers or to the United Dominions Trust —who appear to be the dark figure behind all this—or whoever it may be, "We will get the Bill through before Easter," they cannot regard their decision as fixed and irrevocable. I do not pretend to talk Scots, but I believe that Robert Burns was once responsible for saying:
The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley.
Whether we are to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a mouse or a man, he might certainly take that maxim to heart.

In this case his time-table has been wrecked by circumstances entirely outside his control.
What may earlier have been a matter of pride or some virtue or other, now becomes, if persisted in, a matter of folly. There is no particular point in getting the Bill before Easter. It never had any point, and now the Government are simply showing themselves too obstinate and too blind to give way, when they are obliged to give way not by anything that we have done or by anything that has been said here but by quite inevitable and unexpected circumstances.
Nobody will blame the Government for a moment if they give up a proposition which has become completely impossible and impracticable, but everybody will blame the Government, and blame them quite rightly, if, by adhering to something which is impracticable, they deprive the House of the opportunity of considering carefully what is on any showing a Measure of very considerable importance and, in particular, of considering those parts of the subject which arise out of the Amendments and now form a substantial part of the Bill as a whole.
If the Government do that, and if we are driven to hurry through these Amendments, to deal with the matter in a hustle and a bustle, to give it no fair consideration and to pass it knowing that we have not given it proper preparation. I say with confidence that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and his supporters are in effect sacrificing the decencies of Parliament and the principles of democracy to a bit of what I can only call prejudiced pigheadedness-unless, of course, they have some bargain with the United Dominions Trust, or someone else, that, notwithstanding anything, they will get the Bill through before Easter.
What are we to think about a party which treats Parliament in this way and treats our duty to the country and to our constituents in this way, and which, through nothing more than a piece of pigheadedness and in accordance with a catch-word which they have put into their own mouths, insists on depriving this democratic assembly of the opportunity of doing its job decently, properly and fairly on behalf of those who sent it here?

5.9 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I wish to add my word of protest against what is being done by the Government, because whatever may have been said from the Opposition Front Bench about comings and goings, about delays in getting notification of the Lords Amendments and lack of opportunities for putting down Amendments to their Amendments, this House has to recognise that the back bench Member is an essential part of the House and that, without the effective participation of the back bench Members, our constituents are not represented. It would be a deplorable thing if the procedure of this House were to deteriorate to a matter of bargaining between the Front Benches, even on the basis of the most fair and adequate method of exchanging information between those two quarters.
I am one of those who have followed the Bill through the whole of Second Reading and the Committee stage and have taken considerable interest in the details of the Bill because of the feeling that the Bill, irrespective of the political purposes behind it, was a piece of major legislation, vitally affecting the interests of large numbers of people in the country one way or the other. It is a matter of argument whether it affects them for better or worse, but it is beyond argument that this is a first-class item of legislation the implementation of which, in whatever form it may emerge from this Parliament, is of first-class importance and will directly affect the lives and interests of many hundreds and thousands, and maybe more, of our people.
How are we to have an opportunity of deciding on the final form which the Bill should take? It has already been pointed out that in the Committee stage the Bill was driven through under the Guillotine and we were not able to give adequate attention to some of the important propositions which were made in Amendments to the Bill. However, we got through the Committee stage, and the Bill has now been to the Lords, and the Lords Amendments have come to us.
I do not want to give a long recitation of the facts—I emphasise "facts"—that we had from the Leader of the House. The facts have been peculiarly changed by interventions by my right hon. and hon. Friends; but I leave that for the

moment. The simple fact for me is that very important and far-reaching Amendments have come from the Lords for consideration by this House. What opportunities have back benchers had of seeing the Amendments?
Like some of my hon. Friends, I have an arrangement with the Vote Office, whereby I am sent papers relating to official business. I returned from my constituency on Monday morning. Whatever may be said by the Leader of the House, it is part of our duties and responsibilities to visit our constituencies occasionally, and if we do that at weekends when the House is not sitting, I do not see that anyone can criticise us for it, because it is our duty.
Returning from my constituency yesterday morning, I found copies of the Lords Amendments. Monday was not a sitting day, and it was not until this morning that I was able to obtain a copy of the Amendments to the Lords Amendments. They would never have been tabled but for the fact that a number of my hon. Friends came here yesterday and by some special arrangement were able to see the Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: There was no special arrangement. Those Amendments were handed in. as they had to be, by 4.30 on Monday.

Mr. Hynd: I understood from my right hon. Friend that if it had not been for his persistence or for some other factors, that would not have happened as the House was not sitting. However, I stand corrected. I am speaking from the point of view of the back benchers, and the fact is that we had no opportunity of seeing the Amendments to the Lords Amendments before this morning.
It has been pointed out that in these Amendments from another place there are proposals, in some cases new Clauses, which in themselves represent almost major pieces of legislation. Certainly in some cases they have a greater import and will have more important effects upon the industry of this country and upon the lives of some of the people than some of the thousands of items of delegated legislation to which hon. Members opposite have always objected so strongly —indeed, against which over a period of


years they have carried out a major campaign, claiming that so much of this delegated legislation, without adequate opportunity for the House of Commons to consider it and move Amendments to it, is undermining our Parliamentary democratic procedure.
Some of these Lords Amendments are certainly as important and far-reaching as many of those items of delegated legislation about which we have had so many protests and in respect of which we have witnessed so many late-night scenes in this House when we on these benches were the Government. Yet we are to have no opportunity of examining those Amendments. Some of us got together this afternoon during the earlier part of Question time, when we should probably have been in the Chamber, to try to tie up the Amendments to the Lords Amendments with the Lords Amendments to the Bill. I submit that it is quite impossible to expect us to do that satisfactorily.
It is not as if it were merely a matter of scoring points off each other in this House. It is not as if it were merely a matter of the Government "putting one across" and getting away with it because they happen to have a majority. There are many thousands of people outside this House who are concerned about this Bill. There has not been a single word about the 600,000 or so railwaymen and their wives and the hundreds of thousands of road transport workers and their wives and families who are concerned by this Bill, and who, whatever the Government may say, have staged protests about this Bill all over the country during the last two or three months.
There are many hundreds of thousands of people who are concerned about the buying and selling of the transport units and about what is going to happen in the long run to our transport system after that buying and selling has taken place. What is to be the economic position of our railways? They are not being given an opportunity through the representatives sent to this House to examine the implications and the repercussions of the proposals that have come from another place. Some of those people were discussing the Bill with their representatives last Sunday, and even on Monday, as the House was not sitting.
I think it is really a monstrous situation, and whatever the Leader of the House and the Government may say about other occasions when there were only five days provided to consider Lords Amendments to major Measures, they have not been able to cite a single case where five non-effective days constituted the only time that was given, when there was no opportunity at all in the normal course of our Parliamentary meetings for dealing with the Lords Amendments.
I do not want to overload the appeal that has been made with regard to the special circumstances which prevented us meeting yesterday. They should be clear to the Government. If the position is not sufficiently clear to the Government, I think it will be clear enough before this night is over to the country at large that the Government on this occasion are engaged in a piece of slick practice which will do no good to our Parliamentary reputation in this country; and will do no good to the cause of democracy throughout the world, which in many cases is based upon a careful study and emulation of the methods which are adopted in our Parliament.
In view of the importance that we on these benches and so many people outside this House attach to the situation that has been created by the Government—the impossibility of discussing, not merely adequately but at all with any clear understanding, the very important propositions which are before us today— I wish to make a very strong appeal, as a representative of the back benchers, in support of the appeal made by my right hon. Friend to withdraw this item from our programme so that we can proceed to our other business.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I wish to support, as strongly as I can, the appeal made by my hon. and right hon. Friends to the Leader of the House and the Minister of Transport not to proceed with consideration of the Lords Amendments this afternoon. I ask the Leader of the House to try to imagine what the feelings of people outside will be. I am sure that the ordinary decent commonsense person will regret and resent the attitude of the Government in not allowing adequate time to Members of Parliament to consider, not only the


Lords Amendments, but proposed Amendments to those Amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench.
The circumstances which have arisen out of the passage of this Bill cannot be divorced from the discussion of this Motion. We have had a virtual Guillotine at all stages of the Bill. Although I have spent a lifetime in the transport industry, I was unable to catch Mr. Speakers eye on Second Reading because of the limitation imposed on that debate. There are many hon. Members on this side who, because of the serious time limitation, were not able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at any stage of the Bill and put forward a constructive point of view.
As I understand it, the Lords Amendments were not available to back bench Members of this House until Saturday morning at the earliest. The proposed Amendments to those Amendments, which have been put down by the Opposition Front Bench, were not available to back bench Members until today. In those circumstances, it is obviously physically impossible for back benchers to give a considered opinion upon either the merits or demerits of the Lords Amendments or the proposed Amendments tabled by my hon. and right hon. Friends.
The average citizen of our country is a decent-minded individual, and, whether he is for denationalisation or against it, I believe that he, like hon. Members on both sides, is conscious of the need to satisfy the public, not only that we are maintaining the democratic system in the country, but that we are allowing it to be applied in Parliament. If this Bill were a question of life and death, if it were a question of preserving democracy in this country, or of dealing with an urgent matter affecting the well-being of society, one could understand the indecent haste of the Government.
But here is a Bill which has been cold-shouldered by every section of the industry which understands anything at all about transport. It has been received luke-warmly by some hon. Members on the Government side. Many of them have supported the Government in the Lobby out of sheer loyalty, realising that this is a thoroughly bad and disgraceful Bill. During Second Reading, and at the other stages of the Bill, many of us were prevented from putting forward the constructive viewpoint of men and women

engaged in the industry with whom we have had such a long and intimate association.
We have had to tell the workers in the transport industry—men and women who have rendered such great service over so many years—that the Government have allowed inadequate time for the discussion of this Bill in the House of Commons. We now have, in effect, to consider a miniature Bill, which is what the Lords Amendments represent, and we are told that we must proceed to consideration of these Lords Amendments although we have had inadequate time to consider the matter.
We are indebted to the workers in the transport industry for their contribution to the development and welfare of this nation, and they are entitled to better treatment than this. Are we to go from this House and say to our friends in the transport world that a Tory Government, who are always paying lip-service to the desire to be fair to organised labour and to the trade union movement, who are now compelling us to consider about 70 important new Amendments and an important new Clause to the Transport Bill, are apparently afraid of proper examination and are denying us the opportunity, first, fairly to examine the implications of these Amendments; and, second, an opportunity to give our considered opinion upon them?
I do not understand the great urgency in rushing this Bill through before Easter, unless it be that the Government are anxious to give a nice Easter egg present to their friends in the road haulage and investment industries. That can be the only reason. There is no urgency about this Bill which, if it does anything at all, will cause great difficulties in the transport industry; it will have repercussions upon the facilities available to other industries using transport; it will disturb the well-organised and developing principle underlying the Transport Act; it will confer no advantage upon the nation or upon industry. The only advantage this Bill can confer is an advantage to those who want to benefit financially at the expense of the nation.
These Lords Amendments are of vital importance to organised labour. Am I to go to my friends in the transport industry and say, "We are not to be allowed to make our contribution towards considering these Amendments?" Are we to


tell them that the Government are so afraid of examination of these Amendments, so scared that the mistakes contained even in these Amendments will be revealed to the community, that they do not want them fully considered, lest, perhaps, they may be compelled to have further thoughts about carrying out this Measure?
I appeal, if any appeal is of any avail, to the Leader of the House. It has always been accepted that the Leader of the House has not merely the duty of pushing through the House the business of the Government but also the responsibility for seeing that there is fair play to every Member of the House on both sides. I say to the Leader of the House that he has failed lamentably in that duty, his first duty in the House, of seeing that the back bench members are given some consideration. His duty is to lead this House in a dignified way, and in such a way that the general public may be able to say, "We do not agree with the policy of the Government but, at least, they have allowed the Opposition a fair chance of putting forward their case."
If this bad example of the Leader of the House is followed by future Leaders of the House there will be a deterioration in the whole system of Parliamentary government. With all the dangers that there are arising from dictatorships in the world, the most important thing for us in this country to do is to set an example in the application of our democratic system, to show the world that it can work. It is a part of our democratic machinery that the back bench Members of this House, whether on the Government or the Opposition side, are entitled to put forward the viewpoints of the people they represent here.
Once we create the impression in the minds of the electors that Parliament is no longer the place where the back bench Member can fight for the interests of his constituents, however poor and however humble they may be, we shall be on the road to dictatorship. If we value our democracy we should make sure that this House of Commons reflects it as a shining light, a beacon, to the whole world, particularly to the dark areas of the world where they have no opportunity of

democracy and of voting to select democratic governments.
I make an earnest appeal to the Leader of the House even at this late hour that he should assert leadership; not political leadership, but dignified leadership of the whole House. Let him show that the protests of the back benchers have penetrated even his mind. If we cannot penetrate his mind, let us, at least, try to penetrate his heart.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has he one?

Mr. McLeavy: These are genuine protests that are being made against the Government's proposals. Let the right hon. Gentleman show that he realises that, and realises what will be the repercussions of his refusal to heed them on the minds of the people engaged in the industry. Let him be big enough to say that, in view of all the circumstances, in view of the misunderstanding which may arise from the Government proceeding with this matter now, the Government will take another day, or at any rate give ample time, to allow the House of Commons, and the trade union Members of the House, to put forward considered views upon these Amendments. I believe that that is the way we shall preserve our democracy, and that that is the only way in which democracy can deserve to be preserved m any country.

5.36 p.m

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like to support the passionate plea to which we have just listened, though I should like to adduce rather different reasons why I would hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the request being made to him from these benches. We are face to face with one of those occasions when, whether or not democracy is involved, the decencies of Parliamentary conduct are involved. We are concerned with the proprieties of Parliamentary conduct. I think it is really an intolerable outrage that the House should be asked to deal with the Lords Amendments today.
We are faced with the problem of dealing with a lengthy series of Amendments from another place to this Transport Bill. I do not propose, as my hon. Friend did in the course of his remarks, to argue the merits of the Bill. That is a matter we have debated on other occasions, and if


necessary, will debate again. What we are concerned with at the moment is whether it is reasonable, fair or tolerable to ask this House at this short notice, with no adequate preparation, to consider this lengthy series of Amendments made to this Bill in another place and at the same time to consider the Amendments put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and others.
The Leader of the House knows perfectly well that the Amendments made in the House of Lords are Amendments which, presumably, are deserving of consideration by this House. They are of varying importance. Some are technical, some arc matters of policy, some are matters of principle, some are matters of detail; but they are all complicated. I am sure that the Leader of the House would be the first to agree that this House would not be fulfilling its functions if it were to treat any of these Amendments which have come down from another place in a perfunctory manner. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and all the members of the Government wish to give the attention which they deserve to these Amendments. They all require careful consideration.
We have as part of our constitution this bicameral arrangement under which the Lords have a great deal of time and leisure, leisure denied to us in this House, to go through a Bill of this importance. This is the only opportunity we shall have of being able to consider with leisure the Amendments which have been made in another place. I am speaking purely for myself. I did not get an opportunity to take part either in the Second Reading or Third Reading debates, and owing to the Guillotine arrangements with which the House were confronted by the Government, I had only the briefest opportunities on the Committee stage. Under the Guillotine our debates were notoriously curtailed, and there were very few facilities for ordinary back benchers like myself to take part in the debates.
When a Bill is subject to the Guillotine procedure it is inevitable that the burden falling on the Opposition to examine the Bill in detail is concentrated into the hands of a relatively few Members, but that does not relieve every other hon. Member of his duty and responsibility to

make sure that before the Bill finally leaves this House it is in a state which is as near perfection as it can be, notwithstanding the fact that on these benches we are violently opposed to the principle of the Bill. We are not concerned today with the principle of the Bill but with its technicalities as a piece of machinery, and every Member of Parliament has a duty to make sure that any ambiguities have been removed before we part with it. This is our last opportunity to tidy it up and to consider what Amendments their Lordships have made.
Hon. Members on this side of the House are not particularly in love with the House of Lords as an institution. Many of my hon. Friends would regard that as an understatement. I realise that I should be out of order if I ventured very far on a consideration of the merits or demerits of the House of Lords as at present constituted. For the purposes of this Bill we have to take the House of Lords as we find it, with all its faults, hoping that before long we shall have an opportunity of changing its constitution. But having the House of Lords as it is, we must assume whether or not we agree with it that they are a responsible body. Many of my hon. Friends have their doubts about that, but I am prepared to assume that some of the Amendments which have been introduced by the House of Lords have been introduced by a responsible Chamber and are therefore worthy of our consideration.

Mr. Ede: That is a most unwarrantable assumption.

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend says it is an "unwarrantable assumption."

Mr. Ede: "Most" unwarrantable.

Mr. Fletcher: It is a "most" unwarrantable assumption. But a great many assumptions which we make in this life are quite unwarranted. Very few assumptions, if one took the trouble to probe and analyse them, could be justified in logic, reason or common sense. But this is not the occasion for pursuing that theme.
I am prepared to base my arguments to the Leader of the House on the footing that some of the Amendments made in the House of Lords, as at present constituted, are put forward by persons having


some responsibility and are therefore worthy of our consideration. As the elected Member for Islington, East, I feel it is my duty to consider as best I can the proposals which have come from another place. I did not receive the Lords Amendments until this morning, and only then did I have an opportunity of considering the Amendments—put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South—to those Amendments.
As everybody knows, I am a loyal supporter and admirer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. I should be disposed to assume that any Amendments to which he attached his name were Amendments which deserved my support, but no Member on either side of this House should be put into the position of having blindly to support either Amendments to Lords Amendments or anything else. As elected Members of the House of Commons it is our duty to exercise our individual, independent conscience and judgment, and to see whether Amendments are right or wrong by examining them.
Apart from the principle of this Bill, to which hon. Members on this side of the House are violently opposed, we are anxious to see that when it does become an Act it is as free from ambiguities and absurdities as we can make it. Therefore, since this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss this Bill without being subject to the Guillotine or to a closure Motion—

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is to come.

Mr. Fletcher: No. I suggest that it is quite inconceivable that a closure Motion will be moved on this debate. This is a matter which affects the dignity, the decencies and the proprieties of Parliamentary Government, and I do not imagine for a moment that even the Government Chief Whip would have the effrontery to attempt to stifle discussion of a matter which touches us all so seriously and vitally as does this debate.
I want only to do my duty. I want to understand these Amendments which have come from the House of Lords. There are 70 pages of them. I could not be expected—as the Leader of the House suggested a moment ago—to listen to the

House of Lords while they were debating the Transport Bill. A moment ago the Leader of the House almost suggested that it was the duty certainly of those who were particularly interested in the Bill, if not all of us, to follow line by line and Clause by Clause what was happening in the House of Lords.
That is not my conception of my duty. I believe my duty is to attend in the House of Commons to watch the Government and be vigilant in seeing what they do here. I cannot follow what is happening in the House of Lords at the same time, and if Amendments come from the other place, before I can pass any judgment upon them I want to understand them and then read the debates which have taken place in the House of Lords in order to see by what argument the Amendments have been supported. How else can I decide whether to approve or disapprove of these Amendments, or how I should comment on the Amendments to the Lords Amendments which have been suggested by my right hon. and hon. Friends?
Other hon. Members on this side of the House have pointed out that some of these Amendments deal with matters not only of considerable complication but considerable obscurity. For example, we have an Amendment in page 8 of the Bill, occupying four and a half pages of very complicated Parliamentary language. It amounts to a new Clause, which introduces a new principle. It is something about which, presumably, the House of Lords had taken a great deal of time and thought before suggesting that it should be put into the Bill, and we must, at any rate, consider whether or not it should go into the Bill. If it is to go into the Bill, we have also to consider whether it should be amended in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South, suggests.
All that I am asking the Leader of the House to give me and my hon. Friends is the due opportunity of considering these documents. I would suggest that to enable us to perform our Parliamentary duties in this House we must have time to examine them. It is not enough to consider the document containing the Lords Amendments; it is not enough to consider the Amendments to the Lords Amendments which have been framed in circumstances of great haste, but, if I


may say so, with great ability, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South. In order that we can appreciate the points we have to consider the Bill itself. We have to consider the debates that took place in this House and the debates that took place in their Lordships' House. It really is not fair to ask the House to deal with a matter of this seriousness and this magnitude at this short notice.
It is not the fault of the Government that there has been, unfortunately, this interruption in our business during the last few days, owing to the circumstances of national bereavement in which we all suffer alike. Because of these circumstances, I think that the Leader of the House and the Government have a particular obligation to observe what, I should have thought, was an elementary principle of Parliamentary decency.
I am pleading with the Leader of the House, who I do not think is entirely devoid of feeling. One might sometimes think from his appearance and demeanour that he was not particularly responsive, but it is, after all, his duty as Leader of the House to be responsive to these human appeals which are being made to him by back benchers in the interests of Parliamentary decency. I want most seriously to urge that in order that we as Members of Parliament may fulfil our constitutional duties adequately and well, we should have a much longer opportunity of considering these Amendments from the Lords and the Amendments to the Amendments of the Lords before we are asked to pass an opinion on them.
May I, in conclusion, make this observation: if the Leader of the House fails to respond to this appeal, he, and he alone, will be responsible for the consequences that ensue. If we have an opportunity of studying this matter at our leisure during the Recess, which will be a convenient opportunity, we shall then be able, no doubt, to formulate a judgment upon the Lords Amendments. If, on the other hand, we are compelled to consider this matter in circumstances of stress and haste and at a late hour tonight, after the business that takes place between 7 and 10 p.m., it will inevitably take the Government much longer, because then we shall have to press each particular Amendment as we come to it.

Every Member of this House will want to be satisfied as to what the Lords had in mind in putting down these Amendments.
We shall not have had an opportunity of looking into them ourselves. We shall have to try to study them as we go along. I and other of my hon. Friends will have questions to put, and it will produce, I should have thought, an interminable debate. We shall be failing in our duty unless we examine every Amendment. We shall not be able to consider and pass any Amendment until we are fully satisfied. Therefore, I should have thought that, not only the considerations of elementary Parliamentary decency, but also considerations of expediency, would induce the Leader of the House to reflect on this matter, and bow to the wishes of the House.
I would suggest to him in all sincerity that, if he does that, he can do it with perfect dignity. After all, it is not asking very much, and if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to this appeal, and, as I hope, accede to the appeal we are making, we shall recognise that he is doing it, not by way of a concession, but because he is as anxious as we are to observe and maintain Parliamentary propriety. May I, in all seriousness, urge the Leader of the House to accept the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Sevan: I do not rise to conclude the discussion, because I am quite sure that there are many hon. Members in all parts of the House who would like to make a contribution to the debate. A very great deal has been said, but very much more can be said on this Motion. This is a most unusual debate. It is very rarely that a Motion of this sort is resisted.
I was trying to remember whether there had been an occasion during the time that I had been a Member of the House when a debate of this sort had occurred. Usually, the Lords Amendments are taken on the Motion of the Government without opposition, so the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this discussion today is of a most unusual character and must have a bearing upon the development of Parliamentary procedure. That is the reason why it is necessary for us to take note of some of the things which the right hon. Gentleman has said.
I must admit that, with my usual naivety, I thought the Amendment would be accepted, because when I heard last Friday that the House was up, and we had only just had all these Amendments from the Lords, and we were not to have a sitting day on the Monday, I thought that the combination of all those events would influence the Government to postpone the consideration of the Lords Amendments. I must, therefore, confess that I was astonished when I listened to the speech of the Leader of the House today.
It did not seem to me to make the slightest attempt to answer the very weighty case which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) had addressed to the House. In fact, not one single argument has been answered. May I also say that it really is not good enough—and for the record we must say this—to argue that a number of Members of the House are familiar with what is happening in the House of Lords and that, therefore, we should telescope the time available to us, because, apparently, we ought to be spending a great deal of our time in the other place listening to what they are saying. As a matter of fact, the physical organisation of the two Houses was never so arranged as to enable us to listen to each other at a given time.
If one is to take the statement of the Leader of the House seriously, apparently what we are supposed to do—all of us— if we are to have our time circumscribed in this way, is to troop to the House of Lords and listen to the debates there. The result will be, if this is to be an established constitutional precedent, that the House of Commons will be empty while we are listening to the debates in the House of Lords, and, as the same will logically apply to the House of Lords, the House of Lords will be empty while we are debating. I agree that if the procedure worked that way it would be to the advantage of the education of the House of Lords.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the relationship between ourselves and the other place in the British constitution assumes that there must always be a decent period between the debates in the two Houses during which both can consider what the other has said. Otherwise,

if that is not the case, obviously we must reorganise the facilities in both places. Or are we to stand at the Bar, with the utmost discomfort, to listen to what is being said there? Physical discomfort and mental boredom are very difficult to bear together.
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be good enough to assure the House when he replies to the debate, or through whoever replies for the Government, that that was not a serious argument, and that he cannot say that we ought not to proceed with the Amendment on account of the fact that some of my hon. Friends are familiar with what was said in the House of Lords?
As has been said by some of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman is the Leader of the House. The Patronage Secretary ought not to resort to the jaded old Parliamentary trick of whispering in the ear of the person who is being addressed. I am asking the Members of the Government to consider what they are going to say in reply, and if the Patronage Secretary has anything to say to the Leader of the House let him take him outside the House and say it there, but do not let us have such juvenile tricks here. I see that the Patronage Secretary has now left the Chamber. That is what comes of spending too much of one's time in the Oxford Union.
Evidently the Leader of the House had looked up the precedents in this matter, because he mentioned the two circumstances of the Electricity Bill and the Agriculture Bill, in 1947. The Leader of the House has an exceptional position. He is not only a partisan member of a political party, but his Office calls upon him to look after the interests of the House as a whole. Therefore, he ought not to deceive the House. When he makes his quotations and when he uses his illustrations, he ought to be impeccable in his selection. He ought not to try to trick the House, which is exactly what he did when he referred to the two Bills.
In the first place, as my right hon. Friend reminded him, these came at the end of July and one ran until 4th August, 1947. It is always understood that in circumstances of that sort consideration of the last stages of a Bill is likely to be rushed, and hon. Members prepare for that contingency; but they do not expect


it in these circumstances. The Agriculture Bill was non-controversial in the sense that the Opposition did not divide against it. I have had some facts ascertained, because I am always so suspicious when the right hon. Gentleman recalls any circumstances, for I know very well that they will be very much edited. The Agriculture Bill was brought from the Lords on Thursday, 31st July. It was considered on 4th August. There were 84 Amendments, but 46 of them were preparing for consolidation, 15 were consequential and the remaining 23 were mostly Amendments put down by the party opposite which were accepted by the Government of the day. No one can suggest for a moment that that is a precedent for what is happening this afternoon. This is a highly controversial Bill, it has been opposed from the very beginning, and it sharply divides the nation; and it has, indeed, divided the party opposite.
When we come to the Electricity Bill the story is even more against the Government. It is true that the House of Lords finished it on 31st July, but we had the whole of the Friday for the consideration of the Amendments and the whole of the Monday up to 6.45 on Tuesday morning. What we have had this time is not one sitting day. Can the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that there is any comparison between the two? If the right hon. Gentleman has read HANSARD and has deliberately not quoted from it, that is very naughty of him, but if he has not read HANSARD referring to the illustration which he gave, he ought to have done so in order to arm himself for this debate. What happened was that when we came to the consideration of the Lords Amendments, the Minister of Fuel and Power moved that they be considered, and he went on to say:
I understand that, because there is general consent to the Amendments which come from another place and which appear on the Order Paper, with the exception of two which are contested, it would serve the convenience of hon. Members in all quarters of the House if you, within your discretion, Sir, agreed to put them en bloc. If that were done, it would save hon. Members a considerable amount of time.
Then up got Mr. Hudson, speaking for the Opposition, and said:
If it is within your competence to do as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, I feel that it would be for the convenience of everybody. It would save a good deal of time and

enable us to devote rather more time to the two points on which the Government are not going to accept the Amendments proposed from another place.
Then Mr. Speaker said this:
I must say, as one who sat up all last night, that I am very grateful for the suggestion. If the House allows, I propose to do what I have done before. I will have the lines called, and if any hon. Member wants to stop to query any point, then he may indicate."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 1305.]
Those are the two illustrations selected by the right hon. Gentleman as a precedent for what he is doing with this Bill. First, it happened at the end of the Session. Secondly, the Opposition was not opposing; maybe the Opposition had become wary, or had been converted, but by the time the Bill reached that stage they no longer proposed to oppose but accepted all the Amendments to be put en bloc. Moreover, the other Bill was a non-controversial Bill and most of the Amendments were non-controversial in character.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in selecting these two without giving any of the other facts, he was once more guilty of that sharp practice that we have come to expect from him. Here we are on an entirely different basis. Here is a Bill which is deeply resented on this side of the House. It has been guillotined mercilessly. Many parts of the Bill have not been properly considered. This is the stage now that gives us an opportunity of further examining points which have not received proper examination before.
I want hon. Members on the other side of the House to listen to this if they will. I put it forward most earnestly. It has been suggested to many of us in different parts of the country, by groups of organised workers, that they should oppose the passing of these Bills by industrial action. There is very strong feeling about it, exceedingly strong feeling. Do not let hon. Members on the other side of the House misunderstand it. There is very strong feeling especially among road workers. It is starting among railwaymen, too, who are beginning to realise the consequences of what the Government intend.
Whenever that suggestion has been made, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have resisted it. We have said that the House of


Commons is the place where this must be fought out. But when we said that we were speaking quite sincerely, and we expected it to be fought out here. This is not only an unusual debate in itself, but the nature of the legislation is unusual. It has been pointed out by one of my hon. Friends that this is the first time for centuries that in so short a time major legislation has been repealed. Generally, Parliamentary government in this country stands on the rule that important social changes are accepted and the party that opposes them attempts to modify them, retard their occurrence or tries to prevent their repetition.
But in the repeal of these two Acts of Parliament dealing with steel and transport within so short a time we have a most revolutionary decision by the Government of the day. These Acts are to be entirely repealed within a year or two of the start of their operation, although the Government which are doing it have a slender Parliamentary majority and are in a minority in the country. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be in the common interests of all Members of the House to see that the Parliamentary consideration of these proposals is of such a nature as to convince the country that they are being properly considered.
What will happen when this debate is reported to the trade unions of the country? What will they hear? They will hear that the House of Commons received from the House of Lords certain Amendments. I am bound to inform right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the House of Lords is not a popular institution among the vast mass of the industrial workers in Great Britain. It may be revered and respected by some, but I have never noticed any significant enthusiasm for it in any trade union meeting that I have attended.
What will they be told? They will be told that their livelihood, their prospects and their conditions of employment are being determined and decided by decisions of the House of Lords and the House of Commons without adequate opportunity for debating them. I suggest that that is a most serious situation. It creates a bitter psychology. Why do it? What is the hurry? We have not heard any real explanation. The right hon.

Gentleman says the hurry is because the Government like the Bill and the Government want it by Easter because they like it. But that is no reason for juggernauting the proceedings of the House of Commons. There is no justification for setting aside the rules of the House and the precedents of the House merely because the Government like a Bill. I have never heard such a reason before. The Government are entitled to have it, but only by decently considering the rules of the House and the precedents that guide us here.
May I say this before I sit down? I expected that the Government would accept this Amendment. Tomorrow we are to have a Bill to deal with flooding. We shall facilitate the passage of that Bill, after giving it consideration, because the Bill is urgently required. I must say that if the Government are in a hurry with legislation they ought to have been in a hurry about that legislation, not about this. After all, the floods have been there for a very long time. That Bill ought to have been prepared a long time ago. It ought to have been passed into law a long time ago, but what the Government have been doing is devoting their energy to getting legislation through as quickly as possible in order to share the swag with their friends, neglecting the interests of the poor, flooded people in the east of England.
It is only tomorrow that we are to debate that Bill and we are not to have it passed into law until after Easter, although it could have been done long before. Therefore, it seems to me and to some of my hon. Friends here that in bringing forward these Amendments we were, in fact, serving the interests of the House.
There is a further point to be borne in mind. We have not yet finished our consideration of the Lords Amendments and the Amendments to the Amendments. Therefore, we may have to put in manuscript Amendments. That is inevitable, because as we go on we discover more and more defects in what is proposed. What will happen? At 7 o'clock we shall start to debate another issue. At 10 o'clock we shall be resuming discussion on this Bill with all the Amendments and manuscript Amendments.
Do hon. Members opposite believe that when they go to their constituents and


report this matter they can seriously say that Parliament has given adequate consideration to this Bill in all these circumstances? I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment, and that we shall consider this Bill after Easter. I am convinced that if the Government try to thrust it through against our wishes we shall be here until the early hours of the morning. We shall be here very late indeed. [Interruption.] I did not say which particular morning. We shall be here for a very long time, because there is no Guillotine. It is significant that we have always considered Amendments from the other place so respectfully that they have never been guillotined. I have never known of a Guillotine at this stage of a Bill, because at this stage we are anxious to finish consideration of the Measure and give attention to the Lords Amendments.
For all those reasons and for others which my hon. and right hon. Friends have advanced with great cogency, I hope that for once the Leader of the House will remember that he is not only a little partisan politician, but also Leader of the British House of Commons.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps I may speak again, with the leave of the House, and not because I want to argue the case with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). Some of the language which he has just used is tending to deteriorate the debate from the high standard at which it started. I hoped that we should not get into that frame of mind in this House, particularly today.
Therefore, I rise to make a suggestion. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will listen. It is very difficult for me. They have made speeches at me for about two hours or more, to which I have listened most patiently. I have not left the Chamber for a minute. I have not been from here. I have been weighing up in my mind all that has been said, as it is my duty to do. I wanted to put before the House a proposal to which the House might be agreeable, in order to get us out of some of the difficulties which I appreciate have caused anxiety to hon. Members, through no fault of mine or of anybody else's.
The proposal is this: that we should not proceed with the Opposition Amend-

ment now, but should get on to considering the Lords Amendments for such time as remains before the Adjournment Motion is moved at seven o'clock. We should fill up the gap by starting on consideration of the Lords Amendments. We should not proceed further with the Lords Amendments today, in order to make the position easier for hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have heard what has been said. I have not always enjoyed some of the remarks which have been addressed against me personally. Although we would not proceed after the Adjournment at ten o'Clock tonight, the understanding would be that means should be found through the usual channels by which the Lords Amendments and the other Business which I have already announced should be taken before we rise for Easter, on Thursday. I should be very reluctant to suggest that we should sit into what is normally the Easter Recess, or that we should—

Mr. Bevan: We are trying to understand what the offer is, but at the moment it does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman is making any concession. All he is saying is that we should facilitate the passage of the Bill at a time more convenient to the Government. We are suggesting that there is no reason why the Bill should be taken before Easter.

Mr. Crookshank: That may be the view of the right hon. Gentleman. I am trying to find a bridge, a compromise, between the two, and I was basing myself on the stream of argument that I have heard. Owing to the House not having sat after one o'clock on Friday and not having sat yesterday, it had been very difficult for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to marshal their arguments and the Amendments which they wanted to put on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we would be threatened with a great many manuscript Amendments, and the rest of it. To get over that difficulty, I have suggested that we should carry on the debate on the Lords Amendments today only until seven o'clock, but the understanding would be that before we rise for Easter the Lords Amendments would be disposed of as well as the rest of the business. [HON. MEMBERS:"Why?"]
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale leads the cry "Why?"


I am suggesting that an arrangement should be made, through the usual channels, on the understanding which I have outlined. If that is not agreeable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am very sorry. I thought it was a fair offer, in view of the arguments which I have heard. By leaving over these Amendments they could deal with the difficulties which they have said they experienced. I have not had these difficulties put from other quarters, but hon. Gentlemen opposite have put them, and I am trying to meet them. The House should realise that we are giving a helping hand in those difficulties. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman keeps on asking why we should take these Lords Amendments before Easter. I have already said that the Government and their supporters feel that the Bill should be on the Statute Book as soon as may be possible. That was what we had in mind, and has been our objective all along. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—I am not quite sure which right hon. Gentleman at the moment is in charge of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman who interrupted me just now or the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who opened the debate—will consider that what I have said is a reasonable way of getting out of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman so much stressed, and which have occurred because the House did not sit on Friday after one o'clock or on Monday.
I must say, in conclusion, that to give a whole day to Lords Amendments on any Bill is very unusual. I hope that what I have suggested may be agreeable, and that we may dispose of the Opposition Amendment forthwith and get on to the consideration of Lords Amendments until the Adjournment is moved at seven o'clock.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I do not understand what concession the right hon. Gentleman is offering. We are all anxious that the Bill shall be as perfect as this House can make it, whatever side we sit on. I am in favour of the Bill and of its principles, but I know that other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen

on this side of the House are against them. When a matter comes before the House we should make as perfect a result of it as we can. The Constitution provides two Houses. There is the other place, which makes its own proposals, and this place. We are bound to consider one another's opinions. The other place has, as I understand the matter, made 70 Amendments to the Bill which left this House. It is only right that this House should consider those Amendments and consider them properly, and should have time in which to do it.
Why should the Bill be rushed in this way? If it is a good Bill it will be as good after Easter as before Easter. If it is a wrong Bill, then I can well understand why it should be rushed. Why cannot the Government give time for proper consideration of these matters? There is a real controversy going on in the country as to whether there should be a Second Chamber or not, but so long as there is a Second Chamber it is only right that this House, which is the dominant Chamber, should consider what is being done by the other place and have time in which to do it.
Therefore I appeal, with great sincerity, to the Government and to the Leader of the House that we should have time to reconsider this matter. What concession has the right hon. Gentleman made? [An HON. MEMBER: "None."] So far as I can understand it, it is nothing except that he insists upon the House agreeing to this Measure before it rises for the Recess. Is that a concession at all?

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will surely see that it is a very different proposition from the original one of going on today with these Amendments after ten o'clock.

Mr. Davies: We have already lost one day, in circumstances which we all deplore and regret. Surely this is a moment when the country is most anxious that we should work together in these very sad circumstances and agree to get the best Bill that we can. Whether we disagree in principle or not, we can at least do our utmost to see that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it is the best that this House can produce.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boothby: I should not have intervened in this debate unless I had been a Member of this House for a very long time. This has been a very controversial Bill and, as against the Steel Bill, it was guillotined through the House. I do not object to that, if necessary, but it must inevitably mean that certain subjects cannot have been as adequately discussed as was necessary in the national interest. In those circumstances, Lords Amendments assume a greater importance than they otherwise have.
I was astonished at the attitude of the Leader of the House towards the House of Lords. He said that it was almost unprecedented that this House should give a whole day to considering the Lords Amendments. These Lords Amendments cover pages of the Order Paper. Quite a number of them are of very considerable importance and most certainly deserve most careful consideration by this House.
I have always understood that if it became necessary for a Guillotine to be adopted in respect of a Bill in this House there was always the safeguard of the House of Lords, which could then consider any specific cases which, under the Guillotine, had not received adequate discussion in this House, and make the necessary Amendments. I believe in a Second Chamber and I believe that we have a very good one. I am one of those who really believe in the House of Lords. I am almost alone in that matter, but I think they are very good and that their opinions deserve the most careful consideration.
In the last few days there have happened two tragic events, one abroad in East Africa and one at home, which have inevitably and greatly disturbed our Parliamentary programme. We all feel deeply about those happenings. In a short time we are to consider one of them and this House has already passed a Motion in respect of the other. Quite frankly, if the Government had held to their original intention and had kept this House sitting all night of the day of the funeral of Queen Mary in order to consider these Lords Amendments, we should have earned the contempt and derision of this country, and rightly earned it.
What is the position? We have one day tomorrow before the Easter Recess.

Are we to be asked to sit all night tomorrow to drive this Bill through? If I were convinced that it was vital in the national interest, I would say that we must do it, but I cannot seriously bring myself to believe that it is vital in the national interest. In all the circumstances, the country being moved by the events that have taken place both abroad and at home, and on the eve of the Easter festival, I think the Government might reasonably say, "We will consider these Amendments carefully, and in the full light of the thought we have been able to give them, we will deal with them after the Easter Recess."

6.32 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: Like the Leader of the House, I can only speak for a second time by leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal whereby these Amendments would be considered tomorrow. Whatever may have been possible if that had been considered at an earlier stage, it is not possible at this stage for us to accept that proposal.
We have had to make our preparations in a great hurry. I had to ask the Chief Whip to warn my hon. Friends that we should need them until a late hour or an early hour, whichever is the right word. Many of my hon. Friends, for sheer financial reasons that will be known to many of them, have cancelled their hotel accommodation tonight so that they will not have to pay for it. Having cancelled it, where will they be at 10 o'clock? They may be on the streets or in the soup. [Laughter.] No, this is a relevant point. It is not funny. When they were faced with an all-night Sitting, they cancelled their hotels because, quite frankly, they cannot afford to pay more hotel bills than are necessary. Having made all those arrangements, which are understandable to the House, at any rate to hon. Members with a heart, it is impossible now to go back on them.
If we take these Amendments tomorrow, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) said, we shall go all through the night by the look of it. I agree with him that it is not seemly in. this week that we should do so. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech, as did the Leader of the Liberal Party, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made a forceful speech also.
I suggest to the Leader of the House, in all friendship, or, at any rate, with understanding of the functions of the Leader of the House, that there are moments when the Leader of the House should bend. I know that he does not like doing it. I myself was not in the habit of bending when I was Leader of the House. However, there are moments when the Leader of the House must face the fact that the House is against him and that it does not like the flavour of things or the way of doing things. All we are asking is for a reasonable pause in which to consider these important Amendments that their Lordships have sent along.
Why did the Inter-Party Conference on the future of the House of Lords break down? It broke down on this very point of adequate time to consider the I
nterchanges between the two Houses. The time is proved utterly to have been unreasonable, and while I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has made an effort to see whether he can solve the problem, I really do not think that his suggestion solves it. The alternatives are either that the Minister should withdraw his Motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," which we think the right thing to do, or we must go on.
I still say that I cannot understand why it is considered so absolutely vital that this Bill should be on the Statute Book this side of the Easter Recess. I could understand it at the end of a Session, but the Easter Recess is only an artificial interruption of the course of the Session owing to the holiday of a week or 10 days, and the Whitsun Recess is much the same.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman can see that the sense of the House, based upon considerations of decency and of Parliamentary correctness, is against him. I urge him, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Motion. His reputation will not suffer, his dignity will not have been hurt, and he will have shown that he is big enough and sufficient of a Parliamentarian to recognise the will and the spirit of the House at a crucial point in our history.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I rise only in order that the Government may have a little time in which to consider the situation afresh,

rather than that we should proceed now to a Division on the Motion and the Amendment. I hope that I may have the attention of the Leader of the House because I am addressing a serious argument to him. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind two or three of us occupying the time between now and seven o'clock so that the Government may have an opportunity of considering the matter afresh?
The right hon. Gentleman might well consider what has been the history of this legislation. The Government introduced a White Paper long ago setting out their policy. As the result of public discussion they withdrew that White Paper and propounded a totally different policy in a subsequent one. Then, as a result of further discussion in the House and elsewhere, they produced the original version of the Bill which is now reaching its final stages. That, too, was withdrawn and another version substituted. In spite of the difficulties in the course of the Committee and Report stages, fundamental Amendments were accepted by the Government and made in the Bill as a result of the detailed Parliamentary examination of the proposals made.
This was not the case of a static piece of legislation proposed by the Government and driven through the House of Commons. True, there was a Guillotine; true, discussion was curtailed, but in spite of that, at every stage when examination of the proposals of the Bill revealed defects, the Government were compelled to change their minds. And now, after all the alterations that have been made so far, the Bill comes back from the House of Lords with 70 new Amendments. Some of them undoubtedly refer to matters that have been discussed before, but we are now being asked at this stage of a much altered Bill and a much altered policy to consider 70 new proposals.
What is wrong with the proposition of the Leader of the House? The objection to considering the Amendments today is only partly the lack of an opportunity of considering the Amendments on the Order Paper and Amendments to those Amendments. It is true that that is a formidable part of the case against the Government's Motion, but it is only part of it. The other part is that even if adequate time to enable us to discuss the


Lords Amendments had elapsed, there is still not adequate time to discuss them here. Both things are necessary. It is not only necessary to consider what Amendments are being put before the House; it is not only necessary to consider what Amendments to those Amendments will be recommended to the House; it is also necessary that there should be adequate time to consider those matters in the House in debate.
What opportunity is left? Even if we accepted the proposal of the Leader of the House we should have only another 10 minutes to begin considering the Amendments today, and we should do nothing else until tomorrow, which is the last day before the Adjournment debate. Of course, it would be possible for the Leader of the House to say, "Let us do without an Adjournment debate on Thursday. Never mind all those matters which Members of the House have been waiting many weeks to discuss and which Mr. Speaker, in his discretion, has selected for debate on Thursday. Let us wash all that out in order that we may have a few more hours on these Amendments." Even if that were done, Mr. Speaker, there would still not be sufficient time, and what an outrageous thing it would be to do.
It has been asked time after time in the last couple of hours, what is the urgency of this Bill? Why hurry it through? It is no answer for the Leader of the House to say, "We are in a hurry because we are in a hurry. We are in a hurry because we want it. We want it now because we want it now." The House is surely entitled to know why the Government ought to have the Bill now rather than after Easter, and the House is perfectly ready to consider any reason for that which the Leader of the House may have. But it will not do to go on repeating, "We want it because we want it" without giving any reasons for dealing with it in such a hurry.
It is quite true that if the Leader of the House insists upon this matter he can have his way. The Government command more votes in the Division Lobby than we command. There may be some distinguished exceptions—I do not know. Judging by the speech to which we listened a short while ago, one would hope there would be some exceptions. It may

even be that there are enough exceptions to prevent the Government from having their way, but that I doubt.
The right hon. Gentleman can probably have his way if he wants it. He can insist. He can say, "Never mind the arguments, never mind the reasons and never mind the decencies. We have the power and we will exercise it. We will call upon our supporters to disregard the debate, disregard everybody's opinion and disregard the merits of the question, and in the end there will be more Ayes than Noes, or more Noes than Ayes, as the case may be," and the Government will have vindicated their power.
Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman does that, what will he have achieved? What will he achieve that he will not achieve equally well or much better after Easter?

Mr. Callaghan: He is going to do it anyway.

Mr. Silvennan: We shall see. I hope not. It is suggested to me that the right hon. Gentleman is going to use a power of guillotining even this very debate in order to force this Bill through. What will he have gained if he does that? What he will have gained is that he will have put upon the Statute Book, perhaps a fortnight or three weeks earlier than it would have gone on to the Statute Book in any case, the Bill that he wants, in the form in which he wants it.
In order to gain that two or three weeks of time, which cannot really matter to him, which does him no good and which makes no difference to the merits or the faults of the Bill either way; in order to make sure of that, the right hon. Gentleman uses his giant's powers—he is not so big as that, but never mind—in order to get it through and to have his way and to get his Bill two or three weeks earlier. In order to do that he strikes one more heavy blow at the respect in which representative Parliamentary Government is held in this country and throughout the world. He will have said to thousands— perhaps hundreds of thousands—of industrial workers who are vitally affected by this Measure, "Parliamentary democracy is only the rubber stamp of whatever party happens to have a Parliamentary majority at any given time."
Is that really worth doing? Is it really worth doing at a time when representative Parliamentary democracy is under such


heavy challenge in so many parts of the world? Is it really worth while, for the sake of having this Bill on the Statute Book, perhaps, 10 or 12 days earlier— and that is all—allowing people all over the country to say that there is nothing in Parliamentary democracy, that it is a mere farce and a question of arithmetic, of counting heads in Division Lobbies; that it has nothing to do with the merits of Measures, nothing to do with decency and with argument, but depends only on how many people there are in the House of Commons committed to one side or the other at any particular time?
Surely the right hon. Gentleman, who is an old Member of the House of Commons, and who at the moment is its Leader, Leader of the whole House of Commons in these matters, Leader of the Opposition on these benches as much as his own when it comes to considering the way in which Parliamentary affiairs shall be conducted, does not really think it worth while, for the sake of this 10 or 12 days, this fortnight, it may be, to strike so heavy a blow at the prestige in which Parliament is held. Surely it is not worth doing that.
Let the Leader of the House think again. I hope that my hon. Friends will give him the opportunity to think again, not now, when his passions are obviously involved, then he feels personally piqued because the proposal that he made was not immediately and gratefully accepted with both hands on this side of the House. Let the right hon. Gentleman give himself time to get over the natural resentment about his proposal being treated in that way, and consider the matter again against the broader background of what is really involved, weighing what he can gain by obstinacy against what he loses by temperateness, and seeing whether it is really worth while to proceed with the matter in the way that is now proposed.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I do not want to make a speech, but I should like to ask a question. I did not altogether understand what the Leader of the House meant by the "concession" which he offered to us. It did, however, involve discussing the Lords Amendments before Easter. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore contemplate dropping or postponing the Bill for the

repair of the river and sea defences which is set down for Second Reading tomorrow? If so, that is a perfectly monstrous proposition to make.
The Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Bill is an urgently needed Bill, far more urgently needed than the Transport Bill. The people in the flooded areas have suffered quite enough without having their interests set aside in this manner in order to gratify the Government's desire to get the Transport Bill through.
Even if that were not in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—and if it were not, I do not know what was—the effect of pushing through these Lords Amendments tonight and tomorrow morning might very well cut into tomorrow's business and, therefore, the Bill dealing with the defence of the sea walls would have to be postponed until after Easter. So far, all the debates we have had about the floods have been on a non-party level. No partisan political bitterness has been introduced into any of them, but if the Leader of the House goes on with the intention to put this Bill dealing with floods in jeopardy, he will introduce into the question of the flood disasters the party bitterness which, so far. all of us have kept out.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I think it significant that the only speech in favour of the Motion has been the speech of the Leader of the House. All other speeches, including the one from the benches opposite, have been against the Motion. It ought to occur to the Leader of the House that he has not anyone on the back benches supporting him.
I want for a few moments actually to have the impudence to talk about transport—

Mr. Speaker: Strange as it may seem, we are not talking about transport.

Mr. Mellish: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, except that the Lords Amendments are, of course, related to transport.
In that sense I want to remind the House of one reason why we are so very concerned to have a full opportunity of discussing these Amendments. The Minister is aware that in May last year he indicated, on behalf of his party, that he would bring in a Bill to take


transport back to pre-nalionalisation days and, under the original Bill, that would have been done. Throughout the proceedings on the original Transport Bill the intention was there but, fortunately, the Minister was able to learn something about transport during the process of that Bill because he was able to meet the trade unions, the British chambers of commerce, and all those interested in transport and they strongly advised him on the matter. As a consequence, on Third Reading, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in a very able speech:
it was not until we reached the Report stage that the Minister came to the House and told us that a large number of complicated Amendments would have to be put down in another place in order to try to meet the criticism which was focused upon him last summer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 904.]
That was criticism of the previous intentions of the Government. The Minister has given his assurance, and these Amendments alter the whole structure of the Bill. The original intention of the Government has gone. What they intend to do now, having met the criticisms of all those people, is to amend the Bill by means of the Lords Amendments. I respect the Minister for doing so and for taking the advice given him by people who know a lot more about transport than he or I do.
We now come to the task of discussing the Lords Amendments which alter the Bill in a way in which many of us want it to be altered, bad Bill as it is. As a Member of this House I should like an opportunity of discussing with some friends outside the House, who have a great interest in transport and whose livelihood is affected—in some cases those who represent drivers, and so on—the implications of these Lords Amendments; but I have no chance of doing that. We are supposed, as responsible Members, to say what lorry drivers, trade union officials, and so on, think about the proposed Lords Amendments, but we are not given an opportunity of considering them properly.
In his last speech, the Leader of the House said that it was not the usual practice to give a whole day to discussing Lords Amendments, but I should have thought that a whole day in which to

discuss matters of consequence like this is an opportunity which he has missed. It is an extraordinary argument that fully to consider these Amendments did not warrant a fully well-ventilated discussion. In my view, it is essential for the Minister himself to find out about the Amendments. We shall find out later whether he has considered the whole of the Amendments, which completely alter the structure of the Bill, with the outside interests.
Reference has been made to one Amendment alone which covers four and a half pages of the Lords Amendments paper. That is an Amendment which alters the Bill very much indeed. I do not think that the Opposition are asking anything unreasonable when we ask that those qualified to talk on these matters should be considered and that the whole question should be discussed in a decent atmosphere. There is a reference to page 35 of the Bill and to the question of compensation of those employed in the industry. That is another example of how absolutely vital it is, if the Bill is to work properly, that there should be satisfactory discussion with people outside who, after all, are affected by the Bill.
I do not think that even now the Leader of the House has realised what the Bill means to many people in the country; thousands will be affected. I should have thought that a day's debate, at the proper time with proper consideration of the Amendments from the Lords, affecting so many people, would not be an unreasonable thing to ask.
I appeal to the Leader of the House again. It has been said that he is a very experienced Parliamentarian. Many of us who are young in the House look to those with great experience to set us an example. Since I have been a Member —only since 1946— I have noticed that in opposition the right hon. Gentleman did set an example of ability and many times of integrity but, since he has been Leader of the House he has certainly not set that example to us. He knows that the Opposition have had to put down Motions of censure and that he has been personally responsible for complicating the business of the House.
Here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is a big


man, that he recognises the rights of Parliamentary democracy and that there ought to be time to discuss a Bill of such a character. Not one supporter of the Government on the benches behind him has supported him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is no good hon. Members objecting to that, because the only way in which to support is to get up and say that one supports the right hon. Gentleman
The only speech from the benches opposite was by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) who, with exemplary frankness, told the right hon. Gentleman just what he thought of him, and we entirely agree. There can be no doubt at all that the hon. Member has shown up the rest of his party by the courage he has displayed. In fact, he was so good that we almost forgave him for the nonsense he tried to perpetrate when in opposition. We of the Opposition have no doubt that we have a good case but we have tried throughout the discussions of the Bill not to provoke any unnecessary argument.
The Minister himself, in his Third Reading speech, paid tribute to the Opposition for the way in which they tried to meet him and said how much they had helped to improve the Bill. We want to meet him on the Lords Amendments and discuss them fairly and honestly, but at least we want to be given a chance to discuss them with a knowledge of what they really mean and what they are about. There is no doubt that we are being denied that opportunity.
On this issue we have the support, not only of the road transport men, in whom I am particularly interested. In my constituency there were 60 firms which were nationalised, but also in my constituency there are a large number of railwaymen who are very interested in the Bill. There can be no doubt that these people consider the Bill will affect their livelihood. What they are hoping and praying for is that the Bill will not weaken their position. They are looking forward to the next Labour Government—

It being Seven o'clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 {Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — KENYA (MASSACRE, UPLANDS)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
We have now to discuss what is perhaps the most shocking event that has occurred in the history of our Commonwealth and Empire. I say that advisedly, because at the time of the Indian Mutiny—an event which seems most comparable with this massacre— India was not part of our Commonwealth and Empire. It is perhaps significant that, as a result of the Indian Mutiny, we altered the Government of India.
What happened on this occasion? At about nine o'clock on Thursday there was a diversionary attack by lorry-conveyed members of the Mau Mau on a police station some 20 miles from Uplands. This attack, which dispersed the defending forces, was carried out with resolution. The police post was stormed and arms, including machine guns, were captured, as well as ammunition. About an hour after this attack no fewer than three columns converged simultaneously upon the settlement at Uplands. Their arrival was timed to coincide with the absence of the male population on Home Guard patrols. Those patrols had probably been diverted by the original attack on the police station.
This second attack demonstrated discipline. It was a selective attack upon the houses of the families of the Home Guard and of the servants of the Government. Those houses were burnt down and the women and children ruthlessly massacred. Anyone who was concerned with Commando operations will realise the organisational difficulty of bringing three converging columns to a perfectly synchronised attack, which is what occurred on this occasion. This operation was on a military scale and argues highly competent central direction and planning. Since that occurrence, screening of the local inhabitants has taken place. Apparently local people have identified a large number of men who are said to have taken part in this attack.
As a lawyer I am always suspicious of. "That is the man" evidence. I shall


have something to say later about police methods adopted in Kenya. I shall not be altogether convinced even if this identification is corroborated by a quota of confessions. I find it hard to believe that an organisation which carried out and controlled this attack could leave the— I almost used the word "troops"—the people which it used for this purpose, to be collected and screened in that immediate locality. An organisation which could carry out an operation of that kind could also have carried out their evacuation to the Mau Mau hide-outs.
It is now for us to consider the causes of what occurred and how they may be met. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies agreed at Question time, this is a new situation calling for new action. We have first to consider where the responsibility lies. I would say, first, that we cannot lay the responsibility upon the Kikuyu. The whole justification of our presence in that Colony, as in any other Colony, is that the Kikuyu are irresponsible; that they are people incapable of governing themselves; that they require protection and guidance. It is never for the protector and guide to place the blame for what goes wrong upon the colonial people, any more than it is right that a parent or a schoolmaster should place upon his children the blame for mischief which he ought to have controlled.
I would say first that the responsibility lies upon the white settlers. They have been a governing class. They have failed to secure the loyalty of their servants, their tenants and their retainers. For a governing class to fail to secure that loyalty is a formidable indictment. I would say next that responsibility lies upon the Government of Kenya. Mau Mau came suddenly and unexpectedly on the Government, which argues a shocking failure in their intelligence service.
At one time it was said that there was difficulty in finding in the whole Colony two people who could speak the language of the Kikuyu. These facts, ignorance of what was happening among the Kikuyu and ignorance of their language, argues a regrettable lack of interest in these people who are our wards.
Thirdly, I say that responsibility rests in some measure upon the Minister. Though I consider it to be a false impression. He has in this House created an

impression of indifference to African interests and African liberties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I say that may be a mistaken impression, but it is an impression which has been created, and which has done great harm in Africa. We understand the right hon. Gentleman better than do the Africans. It has perhaps been an error in manners, but it has resulted in serious consequences.
Finally, I would mention failure to make economic provision for the people. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in believing that the primary cause of Mau Mau is a failure in personal relations, while not going so far as he does in saying that economic causes are irrelevant. So much for the causes of Mau Mau. But what are the causes of its growth, which has been so alarming that they can now carry out this military operation?
Mau Mau began last summer with sporadic attacks on cattle. By September there were murders. By 20th October, when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the House, it had reached, as he recognised, the proportions of a national resistance movement. He then said of it that its purpose was to destroy all authority save its own. That is as good a definition as I can give of a national resistance movement.
What have we done? Since then we have made almost every mistake available to an occupying or colonial Power faced with a national resistance movement. I recall a conversation which I had with a very experienced and, as I thought, wise German commander. He talked to me about resistance movements, and his success had a grim tribute paid to it in the transportation of the population of the Crimea to Siberia, which occurred afterwards when the Soviet forces came back.
What he said was, "Hitler was always saying to us 'You must make the inhabitants more frightened of you than of the guerillas.' I believe that that is profoundly wrong. Terror is the coin of the guerilla. The purpose of the guerilla is to create chaos and anarchy, and terror is the foundation of chaos and anarchy. As one creates terror so does one build up what the guerilla is seeking to create. The only answer to a resistance movement is to obtain the support of the people, and we can do that only if we


provide protection for those who support us, and if we provide them with justice and the means of living when they are under our protection."
If those maxims are correct, then since October we have done almost exactly the opposite. We have failed to protect the Africans who support us. Chief after chief has been killed. There was Chief Waruhiu, who had been threatened. There was Chief Nderi. We failed to protect one chief even in hospital, so that the Mau Mau could kill him there. There was a councillor of the Council of Nairobi who, having asked for police protection and having been refused it, was killed in the streets of Nairobi. Finally, there was this massacre which occurred while the local Home Guard were out. and when no steps at all had been taken to protect their helpless dependents.
We have failed. We have allowed the Mau Mau to demonstrate their power and our impotence. That is the first failure. The second is our failure to appeal to African opinion. The right hon. Gentleman said at Question time that African leaders are not forbidden to address their followers—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I am sorry to interrupt this travesty of what I said. I did not say anything of the kind. I said that the Kenya Government would sympathetically consider any application by an African leader to address a meeting, but no such application has been received. The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to confine himself to the facts.

Mr. Paget: What else was I saying? I said that at Question time the right hon. Gentleman had said that African leaders were not forbidden to address their followers, and that applications would be favourably considered. What use is that? Here are men who risk their lives if they attack Mau Mau. Is it enough to say that applications to do so will be favourably considered? It was the Government's duty to make every effort to persuade them to do so, to build up an alternative African leadership to Mau Mau, instead of adopting an attitude in which they did everything in their power to discredit the Africans who

would help. They treat them in this sort of manner.
Instead of trying to bring people round to their support they have done everything to antagonise them. They have gone in for collective punishment in a situation which was not like that in Malaya. General Templer went in for collective punishment in Malaya in a situation which he controlled. The Government have gone in for collective punishment in a situation which they did not control and in which they could not protect. That is the one way to antagonise a population and make them enemies.
Finally, we have indulged in what I think can only reasonably be described as a competitive terror in this area. I wish to refer to some of the ordinances which have been issued. One provided:
Any person who … fails to stop after being challenged by an authorised officer, may be arrested by force, which force may, if necessary to effect arrest, extend to voluntarily causing death.
Authorised officers are:
… any administrative officer, any forest officer, any game officer, any subordinate officer within the meaning of the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance …
Included are special constables who, without police training, have been enrolled from among the youngsters. They are men who I have heard reported from two sources have been heard in the bars of Nairobi hotels swanking about how many Kukes they have "potted." That has been the attitude of undisciplined police who have been causing terror.
I should like to read a letter which was published in the "South London Press" from a detective named Tony Cross. He was a detective in the Streatham force and he is now a member of the Kenya Police Force. In a letter to his former colleagues he said that he polices 30 square miles in the heart of the Kikuyu country and that he inherited 50 prisoners without records of their crimes. He says:
As to Mau Mau activities we have three home guard sections each about 50 strong and they go out and bring in the information. Some are pretty good, and we go out and raid and knock a few off. Don't ask me why … just because the home guard say they are bad men. Anyway, after persuasion they usually confess something. I inspect all prisoners and if they are a bit dubious I refuse to have them. The next morning I am usually called to a dead body, and proceed normally.


If you are on patrol and find some men hiding in the bush you call on them to stop and if they don't they are shot, or rather shot at. These boys are rotten shots, so I grab the first bloke's rifle and have a go. Compared with coppering in London, this really shakes you. There seem to be no judge's rules, cautions, etc., but I am gradually getting some proper policing. I am sure that all this Gestapo stuff never got anybody anywhere.
That is a letter from a member of the Kenya police who had served as a detective in the London police. I agree with him. These Gestapo methods, as has been proved by one resistance movement after another throughout Europe, get nowhere in face of this sort of problem.
I have not previously intervened in debates about Kenya. My grandfather was a distinguished colonial governor. I have been brought up in an atmosphere of government, with an intense feeling, which he felt and which was the basis of our Colonial Service, of responsibility for the protection of the natives whom we govern, and also in the profound belief that the man on the spot should be supported until the time came for him to be removed. I intervene now because I think that time has come. The Government have failed and they should be removed.
The Kenya constitution ought to be suspended. Until we establish a new Government we shall not gain the confidence of the people. That Government, by their weakness, their failure and their irresponsibility, as evidenced by their police methods, have lost the confidence of the people. We shall not regain that confidence until we substitute for that Government strong government.
I would urge upon the Government to recall General Templer from Malaya. The nut there seems to have been just about cracked, and the situation is in hand. Let them bring General Templer, who has proved himself in Malaya, to Kenya. Give him the power. Let him have political officers. Tell him not merely to pacify the country, which is essential, but also to build up there a proper foundation for an effective Government.
Let his instructions include the Devonshire Declaration made by the Government of 1923, which is to this effect:
Primarily, Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives

must be paramount, and that if and when those interests and the interests of immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail.
Let that be given to General Templer or whoever is sent, and placed in his instructions.
Tell him to start with a clean sheet, to form a new Government and to make it strong; and, by their resolution, by their justice and by their interest in all native populations that have been neglected, let them re-win for Britain the confidence of the people, who have to trust us. The Government, I feel, should go. They have allowed Mau Mau to build themselves up to a size when they could carry out this operation. This is the time for drastic, quick action, and it must mean a new Government.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: There is one matter on which the whole House will be united tonight, and that is our abhorence of the methods of Mau Mau. The mutilations and the murders which it has committed must have horrified everyone with a shred of human feeling, and these have reached their climax in the events of last week, which have led to our discussion tonight.
May I say that I am particularly disappointed in the emergence of Mau Mau, because I have been identified with the African cause in Kenya, and I have seen that movement concentrating upon education and taking a series of constructive steps in preparing its proposals. It was a shock to see even a proportion of the Kikuyu tribe reverting to these methods of barbarism. In an earlier speech I recognised the strain which there has been on the European settlers—those men in the isolated farms who must have their guns at hand day and night, and who live under constant anxiety for their wives and children—but I think we shall do well to remember tonight that the African victims of Mau Mau have been many more than the European victims.
I think I am right in saying that, up to this moment, eight Europeans have been murdered, while the number of Africans who have been murdered must by now have reached the figure of 250. While I want protection for the isolated European farmers, the Africans in the native reserves, with the danger of attack from the surrounding community never absent, require protection even more than the isolated European farmers.
My first criticism tonight would be to emphasise the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that that protection has not been provided. In the instance of the Larhi location, where the families of the members of the Home Guard were massacred, the members of the Home Guard on that occasion had all been called away, and it was in their absence that their unprotected families were massacred. In the case of the attack on the police station, the lives of three policemen were lost and a large store of munitions was seized, while less than three miles away were the Lancashire Fusiliers, and such little co-ordination was there in methods of defence that the European armed forces were entirely ignorant of the attack, which lasted some time.
I say to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the first condemnation must fall upon the Government of Kenya, and upon his representation of that Government in this House. I am not surprised that, among the population in Kenya, there is now a loss of faith in that Government. There is the demand by the white settlers for associations of responsibility in that Government. I welcome the demand for self-government in Kenya, but when that self-government comes it must not be self-government by one race but by all the races.
The drawback of the policy which has been pursued by the Kenya Government and supported by the Secretary of State for the Colonies is that, from the beginning of the Mau Mau emergency, despite what he has said in this House, there has been the tendency to outlaw and to repulse the efforts of African representatives to co-operate against Mau Mau and against violence.
I would urge tonight that, when we ask whether there should be African co-operation or not, the dividing line should be on this simple issue: Are you opposed to the methods of Mau Mau and of violence? That has not been the dividing line which has been drawn by the Government of Kenya. The dividing line which has been drawn by that Government has been to say that they will accept co-operation from the Africans only if the Africans themselves endorse

100 per cent. the policy of the Government. But if the Africans are critics of the Government or have been leaders and have voiced the grievances from which the African people suffer then they are outlawed and their co-operation is refused.
The African people are seething with grievances. Their leaders would not have represented them if they had not criticised us. They have their land problem. There are 1,200,000 Kikuyus on 20,000 square miles of cultivable land looking at 12,000 Europeans on 12,000 square miles of land. There is the serfdom of their condition among the European farmers. They sign three-year contracts and their wages are between 3s. and 4s. 6d. a week. They are not allowed to leave the district without passes from the manager. At the end of three years they have no alternative but to renew the contracts because there is then no land in the reserves and the conditions in the towns are worse.
There are 10,000 homeless Africans in Nairobi every night. They receive a wage of 56s. a month, when the Medical Officer of Health for Nairobi says that 60s. a month is the lowest figure on which one human being can be kept healthy. Then there is the humiliation of the colour bar. I have been in Nairobi with men much more cultured than myself, and I have seen restaurant after restaurant and hotel after hotel refuse to serve them because they were coloured. I was ashamed, and they were humiliated. When one has that sense of frustration can one wonder that it turns to bitterness and sometimes to viciousness?
Not only are there those practices of normal times, but there is now this practice of collective punishment. A European is murdered, and for 25 miles around every African, men, women and children, is moved, their huts burned down, their cattle seized, and they are dumped into already congested African reserves. With the men arrested, the women folk are left unprotected. The Government may by these methods destroy the Mau Mau organisation, but they will only increase the bitterness which is the cause of Mau Mau.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government of Kenya to seek the co-operation of Africans who feel


even more deeply than I do about the grievances which I have described, but who are opposed to the methods of Mau Mau and to violence. I was astonished by the statement twice made by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to Questions which I put to him in the House and once when interrupting the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, that on no occasion have the Africans in the Legislative Council offered to speak and to denounce Mau Mau at meetings.
The right hon. Gentleman was in Nairobi at the same time as myself. The members of the Legislative Council made that offer to the Governor during the right hon. Gentleman's visit. That offer was refused on the ground that those leaders were not then prepared to denounce their predecessors who had been arrested. I believe they rightly said that they were not prepared to denounce the leaders of their organisation until those leaders had been found guilty. But because they adopted that attitude way back last November, the Government of Kenya refused to accept their offers to act against Mau Mau.
I will now bring the matter more up to date. The right hon. Gentleman says that they have never offered to denounce Mau Mau. I will quote from the—

Mr. Lyttelton: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with this particular argument, I think he should at least do me the justice of quoting me accurately. What I said was that no applications to address meetings had been received. The Kenya Government do not allow assembly on a large scale in the present state of the Colony. Therefore, in order to get a meeting, an application has to be made. It is quite true that one statement was made in the Press, but it was not accompanied by an application.

Mr. Brockway: I will try to be moderate in my comment on what the right hon. Gentleman says, but, honestly, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to excuse the failure to secure African cooperation on the ground that they had not presented a signed chit to the Governor saying, "Your Excellency, we would like to address a meeting of our constituents of the Nyanza Province on such a date,"

then I know of nothing which more condemns the Government of Kenya or the right hon. Gentleman.
These men are members of the Legislative Council; they are Members of their Parliament as we are Members here. On 3rd February last Mr. Awori moved in the Kenya Legislative Council that African Members should be free to hold meetings with their people. That Motion was opposed by the Kenya Government, and was defeated by 24 votes to 13. On that occasion, Mr. Awori said that African Members found themselves in a most difficult position. When they came there they were supposed to speak on behalf of five million Africans, but when they left the Council they could not speak with them. If the Government had no faith in them then it was quite wrong for Africans to hold seats in the Council. Mr. Awori said:
If you do not want our co-operation the consequences will fall on the Government. You will regret it later.
Those are prophetic words; but let me bring the issue right up to date. The tragedy which we are discussing today is that which occurred last Thursday night. "The Times" of last Saturday published the following report:
Mr. Awori said, ' This is definitely the work of Mau Mau gangsters and has shown the necessity of even stronger resistance against Mau Mau.' He added that peace loving Africans were not going to compromise with murderers, who might use the cloak of fighting for African freedom yet murder innocent women and children. Events had shown more than ever the necessity of the Government's allowing African leaders to speak to the people personally, and he was still prepared to go out into the reserves and forests to do so.
I say to this House and to the right hon. Gentleman, that to withhold cooperation from the leaders of the Kenya African Union and the African people because those people rightly denounce the social, economic and political injusties from which they suffer, and when they are more deeply hurt by the methods of Mau Mau and this violence than we are, is a gross betrayal of all the responsibilities of Government.
I hope very much that we shall regard the shock which will be aroused by the events of last Thursday as providing a new opportunity. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman and the Governor in Kenya inviting inter-racial co-operation to deal with the issues which now


face that Colony. I should like that racial co-operation to be based not only on plans to defeat Mau Mau but on a series of reforms which would remove the social, economic and psychological frustrations which are the causes of Mau Mau. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not impossible. On the day when I arrived in Nairobi, Mr. Michael Blundell, the leader of the European group on the Legislative Council, said that I ought not to be allowed to enter the Colony. He denounced me as a Communist, as having attended Communist conferences throughout the world and as having been arrested in Poland as a Communist. I have never attended a Communist conference in my life and I have not been arrested in Poland as a Communist or anything else.
I mention that to show the psychology when I arrived in Nairobi. But before 10 days had passed, Mr. Michael Blundell was sitting round the table with us, with three other representatives of the European group, with the Indian representatives, with the Arab representatives and with the African representatives. There we discussed a programme of reforms. That programme of reforms was endorsed in general by those at that round table conference of the four races, with the exception of one of the European representatives.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if my hon. Friend the Member for Old-ham, West (Mr. Hale) and myself, private Members of this House, could achieve that in 10 days, with all that psychology against us, then the right hon. Gentleman, if his real purpose in this House is to bring about inter-racial cooperation, should use the authority which he has here, and use it far more effectively, to bring about that result in Kenya. This is the only method by which we will stay the civil war which is now taking place among the Kikuyu. It is the only way in which we shall bring about racial co-operation. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to apply this method before it is too late.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has once again made a passionate appeal for associating leading Africans with the problem of

winning over the African population against Mau Mau. I recollect that on previous occasions when he made similar appeals the names with which he made some play were, in the first case, Mr. Mathu, and, in the second place, Mr. Odede. He knows as well as I do the problems which now surround those two individuals. It is true that they are quite different problems, but they are ones which any Government must clearly bear in mind.
The hon. Member's judgment of these matters and his use of the names of leaders of the Kenya African Union would be more convincing if, in fact, there was precedence for reliance to be placed upon them for the purpose which he has in mind. I should have thought that his case would have been much stronger if in making his point he had used the names of the type of men who carry weight with African opinion and who represent the sort of influences which we wish to see spread among the Kikuyu. His case would have been much stronger if he had used the names of the loyal chiefs who have played a gallant and a practical part, at the cost of their lives in many cases, in meeting the hideous menace of Mau Mau.
I find it difficult to follow entirely the logic of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because, in the first place, he was strongly critical of the Government in Kenya for not following religiously the normal processes of the law and then, towards the end of his speech, he posed as his solution of the crisis the complete abrogation of the present form of constitutional Government in the Colony. It may be that the Government in this country and the Government in Kenya are subject to criticism because they have been too closely attached to using the normal processes of colonial government, but surely that is, at any rate, an error on the right side. A complete abrogation of political forms as they have been developed in Kenya over this period should not be adopted except as a last resort.
As I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton I felt that this House was under considerable difficulties in debating this matter without complete information. It is all very well to rely for evidence upon chance conversations


at the Nairobi bars, or the correspondence columns of the "South London Press" or even the leaders in the "Tribune." But in a matter of this seriousness, when speeches made in this House will clearly have an effect for better, or more probably for worse, on the situation in Kenya, it seems to me that this House would be only in the right in trying to ensure that before it discussed the matter it had the fullest information at its disposal.
I do not find it at all curious, for instance, that the Kikuyu in the Mau Mau were able to execute a military operation of the sort that took place at Uplands. After all, many of them were trained in the Army and saw service in Burma for months and years in the last war. There is nothing extraordinary in the fact that those who wished to turn those experiences to ill-use should be able to do so. In fact—and here perhaps is the change in the situation which exists —we are facing a situation of civil war in the first place, a native war in the second place, and, in the third place, an organised revolution against the Government, led by what is clearly a centrally directed organisation.
One of the most important questions —on which, I hope, it will be possible to get more information in due course— is who exactly is at the back of that central organisation. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton was very liberal in his distribution of the blame both here and in East Africa. He said, first, that the settlers were to blame for failing to secure the loyalty of the Africans who worked for them. My experience has been that the loyalty of the Africans—Kikuyu and others—is directed particularly towards the settlers with whom they have been associated and whom they have known as friends, in some cases for very many years. The persons who do not evoke loyalty from the Africans are very often those who have recently gone to live among them.
It would be unfair to the vast majority of the white community in Africa to accuse them of failing to exact that loyalty from the other races with whom they are associated. We have the evidence of the last war—and I do not think that the bulk of the African peoples in Kenya have changed—that the sense of comradeship between the white settlers

in Kenya and the Africans was stronger that it was between the Africans and those of us who came from the United Kingdom and were new arrivals to the Territory.
Blame was attached to the Government in Kenya. It is true that when a great crisis like this develops in a small and poor Colony like Kenya it is frequently found that the machinery of government is inadequate to deal with the crisis. It may be that a modicum of blame attaches to the past, but it is very easy for us, here, who are now blessed with after knowledge, to apply that blame too viciously and too directly to those who were able, as they believed, to dispense with some of the elaborate machinery for the maintenance of law and order because they felt that in their Colony there was an atmosphere of peace and contentment.
If the hon. and learned Member for Northampton read the Kenya Report for 1950, he would find that there was no reason for Her Majesty's present Government or the present Government in Kenya to have realised that this outbreak was imminent. It came suddenly, and it is extremely difficult in these cases to get more warning.

Mr. Paget: I would entirely agree that the Government here cannot possibly be blamed for not knowing what would happen. The people who must be blamed are those in Kenya, who were responsible for the Kikuyu and were utterly ignorant of the great movement which was being organised there.

Mr. Alport: Yes, but I would point out that the censure by the hon. and learned Gentleman must be directed at the present Governor who in fact, was not responsible for the particular matters which have been put forward by the hon. and learned Member.
The next matter to which the hon. and learned Member referred—and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough repeated it —was the failure to deal with the economic conditions existing in Kenya. Let us be quite clear about this question. The economic conditions in Kenya are no worse than those which exist in other Colonies in Africa. I entirely agree with those hon. Members who say that there is an urgent need to raise the economic conditions and the standard of living of African peoples as a whole. We should


all agree with that. But it is wrong to single out an incident, desperate and sad as it is, in a single tribe in a single territory, and to assume that the particular community involved was in a different position from others.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the difference between Kenya and other Colonies—particularly Uganda—the fact that in Uganda Europeans are not allowed to own land, while in Kenya they possess much of the best land?

Mr. Alport: That is not relevant to this point, for the Africans in Kenya own relatively—I am not going to argue the figures—as much land as they do in Uganda. The point that some hon. Members do not seem to realise is that relative to Uganda, Kenya is a very poor Colony. There is considerable mineral wealth in Uganda and there is very much better land available for certain types of primary products, and Uganda has always been known to be a much richer territory than Kenya. It is, therefore, most improbable, to say the least, that it would be possible to raise the standard of living—even with the best will in the world—and to ensure that the economic progress of a poor Colony like Kenya was exactly the same as that of a rich Colony like Uganda.
The one point which I want to take up with as much vigour as I can is the use by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton of the phrase "national resistance movement" in relation to Mau Mau. We have had national resistance movements in the past. The Maquis in France were a national resistance movement and there were other movements of that type, but does the hon. and learned Member really think that Mau Mau, with the methods they have used and the organisation and inspiration which are behind them, are comparable with those other movements in Europe? As in so many cases, the use of words and the giving of titles are most important. They are apt to blind public opinion to the real significance of what is happening in Kenya at the present time.
Mau Mau is primarily an organisation intended to enrich the organisers as much as possible. It is they who get the advantage of the money taken in for administering the oath. It is they who employ the thugs from Nairobi to carry

out the robberies which have taken place in European and African quarters. The hon. and learned Member is doing a grave dis-service by giving such an appellation to this movement.
In East Africa, and in Kenya in particular, we are facing a position which will require new action. One of the most important things which must be done is to ensure that in Kenya and in East Africa generally there is a far more stable basis for law and order than has existed up to the present, and I would urge my right hon. Friend to use all his influence to ensure that East Africa becomes, as it was to become under the previous Government—but did not, because for some reason plans were changed—a military base, which will ensure that if trouble arises again there will be a quick means of dealing with it.
That military base should not be simply a European one; it should also include, as was planned in the past, an adequate African element. During the years which are to come in Africa—and we must consider not only the short-term interests but the long-term interests as well—it is vital, in my opinion, that there should be a basis of order and stability such as would come from a development of that sort.
There is no hon. Member who has not heard the news of this last outrage in Kenya with horror and dismay and who does not realise what it means in terms of day-to-day living for Africans, Europeans, Asians and all those who support the Government and law and order. But I also believe that there is no hon. Member in the House who is not determined that law and order will be restored to Kenya from now onwards and who will not give to my right hon. Friend and to the Government full support in carrying that out.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure we all join with the last words of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport); indeed we heard almost with dismay of the outrage last week. I intervene for only a short time in order to ask a few questions and to make a few comments. In the debate so far we have used the term "civil war." Indeed, there seems to be every danger that we are rapidly reaching a stage in Kenya which amounts to civil war.
I was in Kenya a little under two years ago, and at that time there was no indication from any quarter that a movement of this kind existed, or, if it existed, that it was a movement which within two years would create this terrible situation in Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman was there much less than two years ago. I am sure that he, too, has felt that one of the problems which needs to be investigated is how it came about that a movement of this kind could grow to these proportions without the Government at home and the Government of Kenya being aware of it.
We had a debate on Kenya last July in which the Secretary of State spoke. It was our usual annual colonial debate, but we devoted it, in the main, to the problems of Kenya, and the Secretary of State spoke about those problems. During that speech there was no indication at all that there was any trouble of this kind—that there was Mau Mau or any possibility of this outrage. Had he been advised of it, I am sure he would have told the House that there was this very great danger. Indeed, when this trouble first began, those representatives of the Government of Kenya who came to this country indicated in their public statements that this was a movement of a very few people, of a minority of the Kikuyu. We have now been told by very responsible people that a stage has been reached at which something between 80 and 90 per cent. of this tribe have taken this oath and at which it is believed that this movement was responsible for the horrible massacre of last week.
I come to the points which I wish to make. It is quite clear to me that the massacre of last week was part of an attempt which is now being made by Mau Mau to terrorise and kill all those among the Africans who are loyal and active in support of the Government and against Mau Mau. That seems to be quite clear. I asked a supplementary question when the Secretary of State made his statement this afternoon, and I hope he will tell us something further about this matter later.
Among these active, loyal Kikuyu are a number—I do not know the number; it must be hundreds and it may be thousands—who have taken all the very great risks of joining the Home Guard— how horrible are those risks was shown

quite clearly by the events of last week. Correspondence from Kenya in the "Manchester Guardian" and other papers has been quoted to us, and there is a feeling that these men who are taking all these risks are not adequately armed to meet the danger which confronts them. I hope the Secretary of State will deal with that problem when he replies.
I mention the next point because it is rather important. To what extent it has been a question of deliberate policy and to what extent it has been a question of voluntarily leaving the Highlands I do not know, but there has certainly been a movement away from the Highlands. There were a quarter of a million Africans working on the farms in the Highlands. I do not know how many are left now, but very large numbers of them—certainly thousands, and it may be tens of thousands—have left the Highlands and the farms and have crowded into the reserves.
One of the major problems of Kenya, and it may be one of the deep-seated, root causes of Mau Mau, was the continuing congestion and overcrowding of the reserves, with all its consequences. If, three or two years ago, or even 12 months ago, before this outbreak occurred, the reserves were so terribly overcrowded, what must the position be now, with the outpouring into the reserves of the thousands of rootless proletariat? This afternoon the Secretary of State said this movement was due to the fact that the Africans were told by Mau Mau—I paraphrase what he says, and if I paraphrase unfairly no doubt he will intervene—"If you stay on these white Highlands and on these farms, and if you do not go back to the reserves, you will lose your share of the white Highlands when the share-out takes place." I do not know whether that is true.
I have received what I think is the fourth issue of a news letter issued by the East Africa Women's League. Other hon. Members have received it, too, and no doubt the Secretary of State has received it. The issue contains a deeply impressive letter written by the wife of a settler describing the life and the terror which falls to their lot in the isolated farms. The letter is related to this problem which I believe is very much aggravated by the continual flow of Africans into the reserves.
It is a deeply impressive letter which I hope hon. Members will read and which I should like to see published. It sets out all the problems and all the terrors which they face. She says:
But there is a third factor which is to me far more painful and difficult to contend with than either the fear or the boredom, and that is the atmosphere of suspicion in which we must live. Continually, on the wireless, by our Elected Members and other leaders, by our own E.A.W.L. Headquarters, we are reminded that we must not—repeat must not— trust our Kikuyu servants.
In warning people in the Highlands that they must not trust their Kikuyu servants, are we not contributing to what I think is one part of the problem—and I am not putting it too high: by this policy we are playing right into the hands of Mau Mau and aggravating every possible problem. I asked the Secretary of State to deal with that aspect, and he gave a short reply this afternoon to a supplementary question.
I shall not speak at length, because I have discussed previously all these problems and their underlying causes; but I should like to come to my main point and to what I think has been a mistake of policy. I put this forward with diffidence and with humility, but I believe that from the beginning we made a great mistake in policy in Kenya. It seems to me that the essence of wise leadership would have been to isolate Mau Mau from the Africans and the Africans from Mau Mau. After all, it was reported to us by responsible servants of the Kenya Government that when this movement broke out it was among a tiny minority. None of us can believe that tonight. Are we, therefore, to understand that the net result of our policy is this: whereas, less than 12 months ago, when this outbreak took place, Mau Mau could command the allegiance of only a minority of the people of the tribe, they now dominate it and that even up to 90 per cent. of the tribe have taken the oath?
It may be said that it is due to the fact that they are able to terrorise the people of the tribe, and there is no doubt that there is a good deal of truth in that; but there is another aspect, and that is that from the very beginning we have left them to Mau Mau. I urge again what I have urged before: it seems to me that one of the first things that we

should have done in Kenya was to support and strengthen the hands of the responsible African leaders who could have won the Africans away from Mau Mau. That seems to be the essence of the problem. Instead of that—I do not think anyone can deny it—the effect of what we have done is to leave the people leaderless.
I wish to come again to the question of meetings, a matter which I raised earlier. The Africans are a people who love to come together. Their very life is built on that. They are continually together. Yet we now leave them entirely to the leaders of the Mau Mau, to the terrorists, and they are never able to see or hear their own responsible leaders. It was several months before Mr. Mathu, a member of the Executive Council and a member of the Cabinet, was allowed or was asked to broadcast to his people, but eventually he was permitted to do so. The Secretary of State referred to that this afternoon, and repeated his remarks in an intervention.
It may be that the African leaders have not made a request to be allowed to address meetings—I do not dispute it for a moment if the right hon. Gentleman says so—but I should like to repeat something that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), that recently there was a debate inititated by the Africans in the Legislative Council in which the terms of the Motion debated sought to enable them to speak to the African people and offer them constructive responsible leadership against Mau Mau. Yet the Kenya Government advised the Legislative Council to reject the Motion, and it was rejected. Why should it have been rejected?
There were Members of Parliament asking the Legislative Council to approve a Motion to enable them to go and speak to their own people and to rally them behind the responsible Government against Mau Mau, and yet the Kenya Government advised the Legislative Council to reject the Motion. I cannot understand it. The Secretary of State has told us about the reasons the African leaders have not been addressing meetings. I know there has to be a limit on the size of the meeting and I appreciate the security problems, but if an important reason is said to be that the Africans


have not asked to be able to do so, here was an instance of them asking collectively (in the Legislative Council, and yet the Kenya Government advised the Legislative Council to turn down the request.
I wish to plead with the Secretary of State again. Why should we wait until the Africans ask to be allowed to go and address their people? Why do we not encourage them, support them and stand by their side? If we do so, we shall offer alternative leadership to these African people.
I should like a conference of representatives of all the races concerned. I should like to see joint leadership being offered to all the people in Kenya— Africans, Asians and Europeans alike. I should like us to take all the steps that are possible to bring all the races together so that we might provide an alternative leadership to that of Mau Mau. What is the alternative? That is what worries me. What I am afraid of is not the danger that this might become a struggle between all the responsible, loyal, peaceful people in Kenya and the Mau Mau, but that it might become a racial conflict.
If it becomes a racial conflict, which of us would dare contemplate the future of that Colony? The hon. Member opposite who said that this is not one of the richest Colonies in Africa was right. In many respects it is one of the poorest in its resources. It has a very big task to build up its resources. We know perfectly well that there is no future for anyone in Kenya except on the basis of racial co-operation. What future would there be for the settlers?
We know what is happening now. What would happen to the farms in the white Highlands without the 250,000 Africans there? It is true that the settlers bring the capital, the skill, and knowledge and the technique, and have established European agriculture in the white Highlands, but unless they can get Africans to work with them there will be nothing but desolation. The Africans are going away, and I do not know what will happen. Who can contemplate what will happen?
If this situation is to harden and deepen into a racial conflict, then there is nothing

but a very bleak and unhappy prospect for Kenya. It is essential for us to avoid any policy, wherever it may stem from, which may harden the present tendency for this trouble to become a battle between whites and blacks. We must encourage every possible movement to make it a battle of all the responsible people, Europeans, Asians and Africans, against the terrorism.
Last week many of us had the privilege of listening to and discussing and arguing with Mr. Michael Blundell, the leader of the Europeans in Kenya. I wish to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State as an alternative to a suggestion which I made when we were discussing this matter earlier. I then suggested that an all-party delegation should go from this House to Kenya. I still think it was a wise suggestion, for it would have established contact on an all-party basis with all sections in Kenya. However, it was rejected. Mr. Michael Blundell has been over here and we have had the opportunity of meeting him. of discussing and arguing the problems with him, and of listening to his point of view and of putting ours.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should invite representatives of the Africans and the Asians to come here as well. It may seem a small tiling, but I beg the House to accept the viewpoint that in everything we do and say, all the emphasis must be on bringing the whole of the people together. We have had the opportunity of meeting Mr. Blundell—I was very glad to renew my acquaintance with him, because I had met him in Kenya—and now that we have heard the European leader and he has gone back, it is important for us to say that we are anxious also to hear the African leaders and the Asian leaders.
Let us maintain the right relations with all the races in Kenya. I hope it is not too late still to urge that we ought to avoid like the plague any step of any kind, economic, political or military, which will finally transform this trouble into a bitter struggle between white and black. We today ought to take every possible step to encourage all the people in Kenya to make this a battle of responsible people, working together in strict co-operation, to destroy Mau Mau.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: I am sure that the whole House joins with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the emphasis he laid on the importance of avoiding anything that might make this conflict into a racial war. I think, too, that the anxiety which he has expressed, and which all of us share, over events in Kenya has been increased and deepened by what has happened recently.
We all know that at the beginning of the trouble in Kenya there was a breakdown in the intelligence services advising the Government as to what was taking place inside the country. We had hoped that the reorganisation of those intelligence services that was carried out recently would have changed the situation; that the Kenya Government should now be more familiar with what was happening among the Kikuyu. I am bound to say, however, that recent developments have aroused in my mind concern about the reorganisation of the intelligence services and the general set-up for tackling this insurrection. It seems they are not yet in the shape they should be.
There has been a tendency from the beginning, particularly in the Press and among public opinion, to underestimate the gravity of the Kenya development. I am not one of those who sees a Communist under every bed. But it is quite clear that the leaders of the Mau Mau insurrection have understood and adapted, at any rate a good deal of the Communist revolutionary technique which has been applied to insurrections in other parts of the world. Of this I am sure: that if we do not succeed in bringing the movement under control very soon Communist influences will eventually take hold of it and grow.
One of the questions we have to ask ourselves is: are we tackling the insurrection problem from the right point of view technically? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) emphasised the importance of assuring protection to the loyal African elements, and that is the key to the matter. Have we got the right kind of organisation and forces to meet this danger? To put the matter in simple form: is the Army the right instrument for suppressing guerilla warfare? I must say, as one with slight experience of guerilla warfare, that I rather wonder

whether regular formations like brigades, battalions and even companies are the right kind of formations for dealing with a trouble of this kind.
What I am going to suggest is rather outside the scope of this debate, but it has to do with the matter. We have a cold war developing and insurrectionary undertakings in different parts of the world. Should we not therefore contemplate the formation of some new corps, something between the Commandos and a gendarmerie that would be equipped and divided into the right size of squadrons and units to cope with this kind of activity?
Let me mention another technical subject, that of collective punishment. It is a very difficult subject. Having seen collective punishment carried out by the Germans in the occupied territories of Europe, I would say, studying it simply as a technique for the restoration of order, that there is one fundamental principle which we must bear in mind. Any collective punishment which deprives a man of his means of livelihood and yet leaves him at liberty tends to drive him into the hands of the insurrection party, whoever they may be.
A man can be imprisoned, or confined within certain limits and punished, as General Templer is doing in Malaya, or he can be dealt with as the Germans and Russians do and his life taken away, but if his means of livelihood is taken from him and his home burned down, there is a tendency and temptation to find a new home among the rebels.
Having voiced these anxieties and criticisms over what is happening in Kenya, I should like to turn to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). First of all, I should like to say, since it has not been mentioned yet, that I thought it was regrettable that in this very important debate the hon. and learned Member for Northampton should have made a gratuitous, unfounded accusation against the alleged indifference of my right hon. Friend, which has nothing to do with the debate and for which he has not produced a shred of evidence.
He made one main constructive point in the sense that it was new. He said that the settlers were in the position of


ruling classes in Kenya, and he deduced from that that the present constitution should be suspended and all power concentrated in the hands of the Government. I thought he was wrong when he said the settlers were a ruling class. Certainly, from the Marxist point of view he was wrong. As I understand, the essence of a ruling class is not only their privilege but their responsibility.
The weakness and the difficulty of the situation in Kenya is that, though the settlers undoubtedly have privilege and economically constitute a privileged class, they have not got political responsibilities. One of the reasons for the tension there and in some of the other Colonies is because there are two classes separated economically, glaring at each other, as it were, across the barrier, with the scales held by an administration which is responsible to neither. If, eventually, things could be brought to a point where they form a homogeneous community in which the ruling classes economically also have responsibility politically the racial conflict may become less grave than it now is.

Mr. George Wigg: If the hon. Member is thinking in Marxist terms it seems to me he is falling into error. Not only have the settlers in Kenya privilege but they have power, and my hon. and learned Friend was pointing to the fact that we have a class in Kenya which has privilege and power and certainly has no responsibility.

Mr. Amery: I will meet that point. It has not got responsibility at the moment. At the moment, it has not power in the sense of controlling and ruling the country in the sense of directing the operations against Mau Mau.
I think it is a mistake to refer to the settlers as ruling classes in the way the hon. and learned Gentleman did, and I think it was a mistake to deduce from this that the Constitution ought to be suspended. What I would say is that, not necessarily at present, when the emergency is going on, but eventually, when we come to try to settle the long-term problems, there is something to be said for giving much more power not to the settlers only but to all the different communities on the spot; to try to create a Government which will be more responsible to the people on the spot than it is today.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke of the importance of overcoming the deep-rooted economic and social problems of Kenya and of the colour bar. He will remember that these difficult and intractable problems are not easily solved. It was surely not through lack of goodwill that it was not solved in the six years when the party opposite were in power. It was a very difficult and intractable problem then, and it is not possible to meet and solve this particular emergency by producing out of the hat, like the conjuror producing the rabbit, a solution of the particular problem presented by the insurrection.
It is difficult to see an easy solution to these matters. Anybody who has seen guerrilla warfare from the guerrilla point of view knows what tremendous advantage the guerrilla has against the forces of law and order, particularly in a country where the means of subsistence are not hard to come by. The hon. and learned member for Northampton, who initiated the debate, did us a service in giving us a chance to make our views known, but he drew the wrong conclusion, in casting blame on the Government of Kenya, on my right hon. Friends here, on the Army, the police and on all concerned.
That is the wrong approach and is not helpful. This is not a political issue between the parties here. There are loyal Africans supporting us, and some of them have laid down their lives. There may be others who are wondering whether to support us actively themselves. This terrible blow, which has fallen not on the white settlers but on our African fellow-subjects, this atrocity, may convince many who are wavering today of the need for drawing together with the Government and helping them pursue a more active policy to suppress Mau Mau. It may be that out of this disaster will come a new chance for all concerned.

8.32 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: Many hon. Members will agree with a number of the points put forward by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), but will regret that he did not make some of them a little earlier. His view on collective punishment is one with which many of us would have heartily agreed, but his comments come a little belatedly when this particular method of dealing with the trouble is being regarded


in Kenya as doing more harm than good. His comments, drawn from very valuable experience, might have been made with rather better effect some three or four months ago.

Mr. Amery: It is not always possible to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mrs. White: The columns of "The Times" are usually open to the hon. Gentleman, I believe.
It is very useful for us to have this debate. Every hon. Member is convinced that affairs in Kenya are entering a new and very serious phase. It is no longer purely a matter of small numbers of persons operating in small gangs. We are entering a phase of organised guerilla warfare, of quasi-military operations. It is right that we should have this debate because it is clear that there is considerable lack of confidence both in this country and, as I hope to show in a moment, in Kenya on the steps which have been taken to deal with the situation, and doubts whether the Government and the forces in Kenya are fully apprised of the difficulties of the task and adequately organised.
I am not a military expert in any sense of the words, but if I were a loyal Kikuyu and if I had been told only a week before this massacre, for example, by Mr. O'Hagan, Provincial Commissioner of the Central Province, in Nairobi on 19th March, that three teams of loyal Kikuyu were touring certain districts to assure their fellow-tribesmen that now, with protection, they had a chance for a change of heart, and if, within a week, this massacre occurred, I should have doubts that, far from strengthening my resolve to join the forces of law and order, might very much weaken that resolve.
One cannot help wondering how anyone could give the kind of advice which Mr. O'Hagan was giving to Africans in view of the events, not only of the massacre at Lari but also of the attack on the police post on the same night. How could one pretend that conditions were such that loyal Africans could reasonably be encouraged to come forward when one has a position in which a large amount of ammunition and store of arms was available, and in which we were told there were only six police

constables on duty—five, I think, resting —and in which two lorry loads of attackers had managed to drive 40 or 50 miles, it is suggested; when, according to the regulations which are nominally in force in Kenya, there should have been somewhere along those roads police posts, road blocks, and so on? After all, this attack was not right up in the Aberdare Mountains, and it seems to me that purely on grounds of organisation there is serious cause for concern.
I have said that it is not only in this House that there is lack of confidence in this matter. I shall read a passage from an editorial in a weekly newspaper printed in Kenya written before this latest disaster. The last issue available, 20th March, of the "Kenya Weekly News" says:
Reports still persist of muddle and inefficiency in the battle against the Mau Mau. Every settler who returns to his farm on leave from the fray seems to have a similar and depressing tale to tell. It is a tale of waste of money and of opportunities, of the lack of a common policy and of over-all direction; of highly-paid 'dugouts' in jobs for which they are no longer mentally or physically well-equipped; a tale which always leads to the conclusion that there will be no near end to this business without a radical change of policy and of practice.
That is not a "long-haired Socialist" speaking, but the editor of a well-known paper in Kenya. I believe, from letters I have received and from other publications I have read, that it represents a fairly strong body of opinion in the Colony itself.
It is pointed out that the state of emergency has now been on between five and six months. Before that, there were several months of unrest. It has been suggested by Major General Hinde that at least another six months will be required to get anywhere near restoring law and order. Only now, apparently, are steps being taken to give the kind of training at which I think the hon. Member for Preston, North was hinting. A number of times in this House we have referred to the deficiencies of the intelligence service which appear to be once again demonstrated. There are complaints of vacillation in Government policy.
There is also the question of collective punishment which was employed despite very strong criticism from this side of the House, and we are now glad of some


support from the other side. There are stories of treatment by the police which, when it is meted out very often to persons who are, in fact, innocent, can hardly have the effect of making them enthusiastic supporters of the Government. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House further information about the methods and the criticisms which are being made on the more technical side.
After all, as we have proved in this country, it is not brutal and brutalising punishments that cure crime; it is the certainty of detection—in other words, the organisation of the police and military forces, as the case may be. To adopt methods of collective punishment or third degree treatment by the police is far from being a substitute. It has the worst possible effect, whereas adequate and thoroughly efficient organisation would be a much better encouragement to loyal Africans to come to the side of the Government.
We are particularly concerned by the position in the reserves and by the drift of people from the European settled areas. The Secretary of State suggested that this was largely due to the encouragement of the Mau Mau leaders themselves, but there appears already to have been in Kenya a diversity of official voices on this matter. The police and the military authorities have been encouraging the settlers to get rid as rapidly as possible of their squatter labour. The civil government, on the other hand, have been aware of the extreme difficulties which have resulted from this, including the threat of famine, and have, I understand, been trying to exercise a more moderating influence. What they are trying to achieve now, in the most difficult of circumstances, is the settlement of the squatters in villages, which has been urged from this side of the House for some time past on quite different social grounds as being desirable.
Two things are needed if we are to master this situation. Both points have been emphasised in one way and another by previous speakers. The first is a much more competent direction of the operations. This lack of confidence, both here and in Kenya, is not without foundation, I am quite certain. Until one has real assurances of that kind, we will not get the real co-operation of the Africans.

There will, in addition, be the gulf between a number of the settlers and the administration in Kenya, which also appears to be widening. This in itself is a serious problem.
I agree again with the hon. Member for Preston, North that that gulf exists and is bound to widen until and unless there is a more responsible Government in Kenya; and this must be on a multiracial basis. It is extremely unfortunate that the constitutional discussions initiated by my right hon. Friend have, no doubt necessarily, had to be postponed, but even in this emergency it would be worth while to start those discussions again.
I say that not only from the point of view of the Africans, but also from the point of view of the Europeans and the Asians, who have very great interests in the present state of affairs in Kenya. It would be in the interests of all three races that discussions of that kind should once more be started. One of the hopeful signs of the situation is that people like Mr. Michael Blundell and some of his associates have been prepared to continue discussions on economic and other social measures although the emergency has been continuing. I should have thought that if those matters of wages, and so forth, could be discussed, so, also, could the political issue. Unless the full co-operation of all sections of the community in Kenya can be obtained in this matter, the outlook for progress and development in the Colony is very dim indeed.
I hope we shall have from the Government spokesman tonight reassurances on these points and recognition that it is not just fractiousness on our part, as is sometimes suggested by the Secretary of State, which makes us bring up these matters. We are very much concerned with what is going on there and I think the House is entitled to have reassurances both on the technical matters and on the political issues which are at stake.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: We are grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and other speakers on this side of the House who, since the opening two speeches, have kept the debate on a reasonable level, but there were certain points in the hon. Lady's speech with which I could not fully agree.
I think she did less than justice to the loyal Kikuyu in saying that because of the terrible events of the massacre they would not tend to line up and help deal with the emergency, but would rather be discouraged. I am sure that they would react in just the same way as she would if there were lots of burglaries. I am sure she would find out how to join the special constabulary and not take the advice of a former Solicitor-General on her own Front Bench to see if there was a burglars' club she could join. I am sure that loyal Africans are the same, and will do their best in the emergency as it exists.
The hon. Lady spoke of the amount of work to be done. Quite often people do not appreciate the enormous amount of work to be done by a relatively small body of manpower, not only in fighting the emergency, but also in moving and re-settling thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of Kikuyus moving back to the reserves.
I regretted very much some of the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in opening the debate, but I should like to support what he said about this operation being clearly very well planned. Knowing very little about the planning of such operations, I believe that it was not planned by any African of the type of which I have heard in Kenya at present. The timing of the two raids to distract the attention of those who might have been guarding this particular settlement was obviously very carefully and closely planned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) said, there are many Africans who could carry out such a raid, but I think that the planning of such an operation was a different matter and as time goes on we shall have to see how the planning of such an operation might have been carried out. In Kenya, after all, we are in a state of war. It is not just some sudden emergency, but a state of war resulting from a long period of preparation.
I repeat what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, that there was, I believe, a shortcoming in the intelligence service in Kenya. The greatest shortcoming probably was among the district officers. As I said in a similar debate last November, I do not blame

them because I think that with the mass of work that has been given them, particularly since the war, the district officers are more and more taken from their primary job of knowing their people and are given all sorts of paper work and office work to do, arising from the vast growth of central Government. What we have to do, and I know that many administrations throughout Africa are trying to do it, is to relieve the district officer of this over-burden of paper and get him back to his primary job.
I regret very much the disgraceful attack made on my right hon. Friend to the effect that he is indifferent to Africans. Thank goodness we had him with his firm policy, to deal with these situations as they arise. I shudder to think what would have happened if certain hop. Members opposite had had to deal with these matters. I thought it was a disgraceful and unwarrantable attack, unsupported by any evidence.
The hon. and learned Member went on to talk about the failure to make economic provision in the past. I do not wish to raise the temperature of this debate or to introduce party feeling. But surely more could have been done about that during the 6½ years while there was a Socialist Government. More could also have been done about the settlements in Nairobi, which everyone agrees have grown up to the great detriment of people of all races living in Nairobi.
The situation, which the hon. and learned Gentleman described as different from that in Malaya, is not in my opinion all that different. I did not understand quite what line he was taking about that, but I know, despite the attacks made upon him by certain hon. Members opposite, that General Templer has by his policy obtained a control over a large part of Malaya. But do not let us think that the battle is over there yet.
I would say a word in support of the "young constables" referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I am reminded of what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on another occasion about "brash" young men dealing with this emergency—and "swanking about in bars" or elsewhere. It was astonishing for the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who is a lawyer, to call


purely hearsay evidence to support his argument. I think that the hon. and learned Member and others should go and see what these young men are facing every night—the tortures and the attacks on people of all races.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I know from his general attitude to the House that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) would not wish to make an incorrect statement. I believe that the statement which he attributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who is a lawyer, was made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I was referring to a debate some months ago and reference was made to a "brash" young man—

Mr. Wigg: That is a little unfair to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, when he was reading a statement made by a police officer, was in fact reading a statement reported in the "South London Press." The Secretary of State was sufficiently interested to instruct a senior police officer from Scotland Yard to go to the police station to get the original letter. My hon. and learned Friend was making no allegation but was repeating what was said in the letter.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is a different point from the one I made. If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will find that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton talked about "young constables" swanking in bars about the number of Africans they had shot. I can assure the hon. Member that that is the point with which I was dealing.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the former Secretary of State for the Colonies, referred to the Kikuyu being leaderless. I would say to him that there are other leaders than politicians. Many leaders still exist among the Kikuyu in the tribal areas. In particular there are their chiefs and others to whom they look for guidance. I think it wrong to say the Kikuyu are leaderless because some members of the Legislative Council with a knowledge of English and other attributes are not doing what the right hon. Gentleman thinks they should;

or that there are not other leaders doing their best to give a lead to their people.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Those representatives have not got on to the Council. An African on the Executive Council was appointed by the Governor. Those on the Legislative Council are appointed by their own people.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is not the point the right hon. Gentleman was making. He gave the impression, even though he did not mean it, that he regretted the members of the Legislative Council were not taking the lead, and he thus implied that the Kikuyu were leaderless. The point I am endeavouring to make is that there are other leaders among the Kikuyu in Africa and in this country, in addition to members of the Legislative Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these loyal chiefs and leaders among the Kikuyu are doing a tremendous amount of work. Many of them have paid with their lives for the loyalty they have shown in trying to protect their own people from the murderous element of the Kikuyu.
Relatively few people realise the enormous task which the forces of security have to face, and how large is the area of the Aberdare Mountains. Those forces are doing their utmost to see that order is restored in an area which has been described as being only as large as Surrey but which, in the conditions of Africa, is very large indeed. In such an emergency, as we found in this country in 1940, a very large organisation is required to arrange quickly and efficiently a competent security system with all the forces, the police, the Regular Army, who I am glad to see are being strengthened, and the Home Guard.
Everybody in Kenya would agree that there are many shortcomings, but we should pay tribute to what has been accomplished in the past few months rather than try to stress those shortcomings in this House. I am sure that all hon. Members will support Sir Evelyn Baring, the present Governor, the Administration and the efforts of all races— all races are co-operating and suffering from Mau Mau—to restore once again law and order in what must again be a happy part of Africa.

8.57 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plwnmer: We are not only discussing the dreadful and frightful disaster of last Thursday but also the appalling consequences which may flow from it. Statements have been made about young Europeans swaggering about the bars of Nairobi and boasting of the Africans that they have potted. I do not know whether that story is true. I happened to read it in a newspaper, just as did my hon. Friends. But what happens in conditions like this when the passions of young men are aroused by the dreadful happenings in the country is that some of the more hotheaded and irresponsible may use phrases which do not redound to their credit, and which do a great deal to exacerbate the hatred which the Africans are showing to anybody who exercises law and order and authority.
One of the terrible consequences of this situation is the possibility that people may be actuated by revenge instead of a desire to try to get a clean sweep in Kenya". Some doubt has been cast on the letter from Tony Cross, the ex-detective from Streatham, which he wrote to his friends at the station house. That letter is written in most moving terms. It is not couched in official language. It is not the report of a detective to his inspector detailing an account of the night's work. It is a letter written in language that his friends will understand.
Therefore, it is all the more convincing. This fellow writes this private letter home using the phrases that detectives use to each other in the canteen. He describes a situation where revenge is the motive instead of the preservation of law and order. On all sides of the House hon. Members can understand the emotions of people caught up in this dreadful web of murder, assassination and mutilation. We must resist this attempt to use the situation for purposes of revenge, and I think it is the duty of the Government here to see to it that every restraint and influence is put by the Government of Kenya on the people in the Home Guard.
There are some sinister phrases now appearing in our newspapers from correspondents in Nairobi. For instance, there is the sinister phrase to the effect that prisoners were shot dead while trying to escape, which is a familiar phrase which we remember so clearly from 1939 onwards. Then there are sinister phrases

about men jumping over cliffs and out of windows to escape, and may be they are true; but there is growing up in this country today an unhealthy feeling that something is not quite right with the forces that we are using. When a detective writes home to his friends here and says, "I do not like the situation that is going on and I do not like to go out and have to pick up dead bodies; I do not like this institution of a Gestapo," we must listen to what he has to say, for he speaks with the voice of honesty and in terms with which nobody could quarrel.
There has been some discussion by the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and Colchester (Mr. Alport) on the point that this is a carefully organised campaign. I am sure it is; it is a campaign organised in the teeming slums of Nairobi; it has been born out of the hovels behind the Swamp Road. It is born out of the grievous sense of dissatisfaction, the grinding poverty and continuing despair which Africans have. In my time here, I have urged that one of the best ways in which we might try to meet this situation is by raising the wages of the Africans. These Africans' wages have been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who produced in this House actual contracts between African squatters and Mr. Michael Blundell, whereby these Africans got 12s. a month.

Mr. Alport: Is there any evidence that the contracts were authentic?

Sir L. Plummer: There was every evidence of it, because they were signed by the employer's agent, finger printed by the employee and attested by the district commissioner or other legal officer whose duty it was to approve them. At least, I have not seen that anybody has yet denied their legality.

Mr. James Hudson: Does not my hon. Friend recall that, when my hon. Friend produced the contracts in this House, they were passed across to hon. Members opposite, who did not question their authenticity?

Sir L. Plummer: There is nothing peculiar about these contracts; they were the ordinary run of contracts for labour at that time throughout the whole


country, and nobody has argued against them. These are the forms used and the standards laid down, and the defenders of this low wage economy have been saying that if we raised the wages of the Africans we should upset the economy of the country; that is to say, the low wage economy of the country which is based on 12s. a month for the squatter plus a few cents a pound to his family for picking pyrethrum, and 56s. a month for Africans who work in Nairobi.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: Did the hon. Gentleman pay those wages when he was out there?

Sir L. Plummer: I did not employ on the same terms, but I was constantly under pressure by the Government not to increase African wages because, if I did so, it would upset the economy of the country and would make it difficult for other employers to get labour. This theme was constantly being urged, and I honestly do not believe that it is to the benefit of this country or the African people for us to deny that we are running the country on the basis of a low wage economy. It is the very nerve and nub of the situation we are facing.
It has been argued that in trying to raise the wage of 12s. a month for the squatter and of 56s. a month for the town worker we shall upset the economy of the country and place a burden upon it which it cannot afford. But the present state of affairs is costing the country £500,000 a week. That money is going down the drain, and is a dreadful burden on the country.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is £500,000 a month. Divide by four.

Sir L. Plummer: I meant to say £500,000 a month, which is a tidy sum of money. While I do not agree with the view that every penny spent in a war could, if saved, be spent on social services, I do believe that part of that £500,000 could be used to raise African wages to a level which would enable the Africans to keep themselves and their wives and children in health and decency. That would go a long way towards making it clear to the Africans that the Government want to defeat Mau Mau not only with military weapons, but with the economic weapon of enabling people to increase their standard of living.

Mr. Alport: Mr. Alport rose—

Sir L. Plummer: I am afraid I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been interrupted enough, and I want to finish because there are several other hon. Members who wish to speak.
Sir Philip Mitchell has described the life of the African in Kenya—and I hope it does not upset hon. and right hon. Members opposite—as being short, dark and brutish, but the African endures. The lot of the African is not a happy one. It is a hard and dismal one, and it is not being made any better by the present situation, and the African will not accept the position that he will get nothing at all out of this situation.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see that motives of revenge are not used in Kenya, that caution is used and exercised in seeing that the forces of law and order conduct themselves with absolute propriety at all times, and that immediate steps are taken by this Government and by the Government of Kenya so to raise the economic life of the people of Kenya that they will recognise and accept that this House and this country are concerned about them.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I do not follow in detail the remarks of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), it is only because they appear to me to have little relevance to the Motion we are now discussing. We have had these economic diatribes and the production of contracts in this House many times before.
I thought that the purpose of this debate was to discuss the very serious issue, as presented by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), of the massacre of a large number of loyal Kikuyu. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggested how protection could be given in the future to Africans loyal to the Government. He also made some criticism of the Kenya Government and said that he thought it ought to be replaced. At least, that is how some of us interpreted his speech.
When it comes to a question of confidence in the Kenya Government, I am not at all sure how much hon. Members opposite should claim to have this interest


at heart when by their speeches and their actions in recent months they have done nothing to contribute to the establishment or the maintenance of confidence in that Government. Some of the speeches we have heard can hardly be calculated to raise the prestige of the Government there or to hold in check the forces at present running riot.
I was a little surprised by the arguments put forward from the other side of the House on the subject of affording protection because, as far as I could see, the accusation that we are alleged not to be affording sufficient protection is tied up with the accusation that these young police officers whom we are using are inexperienced and incompetent to carry out their tasks. There are, altogether, only 40,000 whites in Kenya. Unless constructive suggestions are to be made about sending a large force from this country, then, if these allegations of inexperience or incompetence are true— which I do not accept at all—I should like to know how the hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggests that we draw from that small number of people in Kenya experienced officers able to carry out these duties and able to step into the breach in an emergency. If those experienced people are not available, I do not know how the hon. and learned Member imagines they are to be trained up to the mark in time.

Mr. Paget: I said that we must not put automatic weapons into the hands of unsupervised and inexperienced people, with orders to shoot to kill.

Mr. Bennett: Nobody on this side of the House or anywhere else, and no one in responsible government, has suggested putting automatic weapons in the hands of people to be used to shoot at sight. Nor has anything been said to justify the use of the expression "Gestapo" which was used earlier in this debate. If there is criticism of these officers, who, of necessity, have been recruited for this work, where is the hon. and learned Member going to find experienced officers at short notice unless he advocates that a large force of police should go out to Kenya from this country?
When one considers their small number, the greatest possible tribute ought to be paid to the gallant way in which

something like 50 per cent. of the adult whites of that country are engaged in constabulary duties. When one considers the size of the Colony it is a magnificent achievement, and it should not be belittled in this House by attacks on their alleged inexperience.
A suggestion was made that we should secure the services of General Templer from Malaya. I could not see the relevance of allegations contained in the hon. and learned Member's speech in the light of that suggestion. General Templer's efforts have been successful precisely because he has been able to follow a strong policy, and the establishment of law and order is his primary purpose. If the criticism of hon. Members opposite is that the Government have not been sufficiently strong in enforcing law and order in Kenya then I cannot follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), which appeared to indicate that we had been far too strong in Kenya.

Mr. Paget: Everything that has been done there shows that the hon. Member's Government have been weak, vacillating and incompetent. That is why the Government have this trouble.

Mr. Bennett: If the accusation against us is that we have been weak and vacillating then, whether that accusation be true or not, it is not an accusation which we should be receiving from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and his hon. Friends who have used such words as "Gestapo" against us. Whatever else the hon. and learned Member for Northampton thinks about the Gestapo, presumably he would not think it weak and vacillating.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. Member not realise that weakness and brutality go together?

Mr. Bennett: As another, even if not such a distinguished lawyer as the hon. and learned Member may say, that is a very gallant attempt to tie up two completely opposite attitudes.
What we have been trying to do in Kenya—and our efforts have not been helped by this and previous debates—is to try to establish law and order before we come to any question of economic or other concessions. It would be fatal to


the preservation of law and order if we were to make economic and other concessions precede the establishment of law and order. That would be an encouragement to everybody elsewhere in our Colonial Territories to start a revolution in order to secure concessions from the Government.
If economic or political concessions are due they can best be granted—not only by this Government, but by the Government and citizens of Kenya—when the situation is quiet and law and order has been restored. It is precisely that which both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government of Kenya are doing their very best to achieve. I cannot see that the criticisms against them have any relevance to that task; in fact, they will tend to make the task of the Secretary of State and the Government of Kenya even more difficult that it has been up to now.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The terrible massacre which has given rise to this debate has naturally raised very widespread doubts about the effectiveness and the general basis of the Government's policy in the emergency and crisis in Kenya. It is impossible for any Government to guard against every act of terrorism which occurs in what is, in effect, almost a civil war, but this massacre is the latest item in an appalling list of failures to protect loyal Africans as well as whites in Kenya.
What is even more significant is that it is a further instance of the fact that Mau Mau has steadily kept the initiative ever since this trouble started. If we are to regain the initiative, as we must do, it is essential to discuss not only the immediate measures but the whole approach which gives rise to the particular measures upon which the Government decide. It is in regard to the approach to the problem, which decides all the tactical and immediate points, that the Government are open to very considerable criticism.
We face here by far the most extreme instance of the root problem of East and Central Africa, which are the most difficult parts of the world at the moment. We have two problems superimposed one upon the other. Elsewhere these problems can usually be dealt with separately,

but here we have to deal with them together. On the one hand there are the whites who, if they were elsewhere, could look forward naturally to increasing self-government, until they became a fully self-governing country like Canada or Australia; and on the other hand there are the Africans who, elsewhere, could look forward to increasing self-government of the type to be found in the Gold Coast.
If our policy breaks down we are faced with a continuous double danger. On the one hand there is danger of the "Boston Tea Party" type, with a violent assumption of power by the white settlers, and on the other hand there is the danger of Mau Mau. Those two dangers are always present in the whole of East and Central Africa. We must avoid both, otherwise we shall be landed with a war of races which will mean the end of our position and the end of all hope in Central Africa.
If we are to avoid both those dangers we have to recognise them. We must not fix our eyes wholly or exclusively on one or the other of them alone. We must recognise that both dangers exist and also that all these races are Africans. They are white Africans and black Africans. It is a great mistake to talk about European and Africans. It poses the problem quite falsely. We have to win the co-operation of the moderate opinion of all races involved to a far greater extent than we have done, and that requires a positive and urgent policy.
This massacre has shown that important changes of policy are now necessary to achieve these ends. The Government in Kenya must be in closer touch with all races. At the moment they are clearly not in very good touch with the Africans. There have also been steady complaints from the leaders of the white settlers that the Government in Kenya have been isolated from the Europeans. Many moderate European leaders have been put in a very difficult position, where they have had responsibility without power, without knowing what is happening or being able to influence the course of events.
I agree with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) that we should give greater power to the local government in Kenya. At the same time,


the Colonial Secretary ought to instruct the Governor to set up at once a council of all three races, and to associate that council very closely with the inner running of government. It should not be just an advisory council but should be very close to him and based on trust— because one cannot govern without trust; and the people of all three main races should be closely associated with the very centre of government.
This Government, with greater local power and in closer touch with the communities, must be based on moderate opinion. That means that we must be ready to break with the extremists in both races, both amongst the Europeans and amongst the Africans. The massacre which caused our debate seems from all accounts to have caused a great revulsion of feeling amongst many Kikuyu and many other Africans; but, as "The Times" reported in its accounts of the massacre, there is a danger that it will provoke some extremists among the Europeans to demand harsh action. The Government in Kenya must withstand that. They must withstand the demands which are likely to come from the more extreme wing of the Europeans for harsh measures to meet these problems.
In all these races—among the Africans, the Europeans and the Asians—there are many moderate men, and it must be the task of the Government, with far greater success and vigour than they have shown so far, to gather these moderate men around them and to base themselves much more closely upon these men. The Government in Kenya and this Govern-must must show much greater readiness to tackle the fundamentals of the problem. The Secretary of State has, I think, far too much given the impression that the fundamentals do not matter, that they are long-term and distant and that one must worry only about the immediate military and similar measures.
The immediate military measures are of vital importance, but the tackling of some of these fundamental problems is overdue. They must be tackled quickly. I do not believe that if we settle a few economic problems we shall find a remedy for all our difficulties. Indeed, I do not think that economic problems as such are at the root of our difficulties. It is far more a question of social problems.
As Sir Philip Mitchell said in his admirable despatch, the whole of East Africa is going through a social and economic revolution. If hon. Members read that despatch, knowing what has since happened amongst the Kikuyu, they will find it very striking how often Sir Philip quotes instances from the Kikuyu—long before anyone had dreamt of Mau Mau —as examples of this social and economic revolution at its strongest and worst. Undoubtedly that must have been one of the underlying causes of the trouble which has arisen.
This great social revolution started 50 years ago, as Sir Philip says. These people have been torn out of their own culture and their own discipline. Under their tribal law they had a great system of discipline, but all that has been destroyed and nothing has been put in its place. They are in a vacuum. It is in those circumstances that this great problem arises, although there are always local reasons as well.
Obviously, this great social problem cannot be solved in a short time. I think it will be with us for a generation before we have fully solved it. But that is not a reason for saying we can delay. This revolution has been going on for 50 years and has hardly been noticed. It is long overdue for vigorous tackling, and we should not delay at all in tackling the more fundamental aspects of it at the same time as we go ahead with the immediate, military and police measures.
I think there are three things, in particular, upon which we should concentrate. Although in a sense they are long-term they would begin to yield results relatively quickly. The first is a far greater drive in the building of schools. I think the growth of the Mau Mau schools, which, after all, was an important part of this movement, could not have occurred had there not been a shortage of schools. They were filling a need, a need left partly by the missionaries and partly by the public authorities. If we are to fight Mau Mau with success we must fight it in the schools as well as with bullets.
Then there is also the vital need for an increased policy of improved housing in the towns. Many Kikuyu now live in the towns. Their housing is appalling. It is no good saying that the housing is no worse than the old tribal housing,


because the Kikuyu are making comparisons not with tribal conditions but with what they see in the towns. The awful housing conditions, plus the vision which they now have, because they have seen how one can live in a town, have, in this case, as in so many other peasant revolts in history, been one of the causes of the trouble.
There is another problem for the Government to face. They must bring all the pressure they can to bear in favour of a gradual relaxation of the colour bar. As long as that problem is not tackled— I do not mean anything dramatic; I mean that there must be steady progress towards its solution—we shall not get away from this sort of problem in Kenya, and elsewhere in Africa. This is particularly so in the towns. The colour bar is not nearly so important in the countryside, but it is important in the towns, where the people crowd together; and, above all, between the white Europeans and the educated coloured Africans.
The most dangerous thing of all in Africa today is the isolation of the educated African from everybody else. Because of his education, he is cut off from his own people, and because of the colour bar he does not form proper relationships with people of his own culture and education. This relaxation of the colour bar will be difficult to achieve, but if it is not done, there is no solution to our problem, which will get worse and worse in one part of Africa after another. We do not want sudden dramatic solutions, because they cannot be found either; we want a steady pressure which will get this relaxation proceeding faster than if it is left without any pressure at all.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that these things are too long-term; but there is one immediate thing which should be done. It has been mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends. There should be a much more active drive to win African opinion over to our side. It seems that at this moment there is a better chance of that than at any time since Mau Mau started. There has been a great revulsion of feeling against the atrocity in which women and children were killed.
The Colonial Secretary told us today about rumours which were spreading and causing great trouble and difficulty. I

agree that rumours are hard to cope with, but it is no good sitting down and doing nothing about them. The only means of coping with them is to have an active policy of propaganda. There is no doubt that one of the things that helped to turn the tide in Malaya was the decision to embark on an active, co-ordinated and vigorous propaganda campaign to spread not lies but the truth about the things which were happening. If we want to change the situation in Kenya we must do that.
We must make full use of loyal, friendly Africans who are eager to cooperate. We were very disappointed about the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to that. He said that applications would be considered but that none had been made. In such a circumstance, the Government ought to ask the Africans to help. They should be asking the African leaders to speak to their people and should be offering facilities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) said, Mr. Awori, an elected leader of the Africans, said, after the massacre—this was quoted in "The Times"—that he himself was still ready to go into the reserves and forests to speak to the people. That was a public statement made by Mr. Awori. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why Mr. Awori has not been encouraged to go into the forests and the reserves to talk to his own people?
The terrible massacre presents us with a very great crisis in Africa, and a very great challenge. It may be a turning point for all our endeavours in this part of Africa. Mau Mau is not only a Kenya phenomenon. If it is not properly handled, Mau Mau will spread and reproduce itself in different forms elsewhere in Africa wherever basic conditions exist like those in Kenya. Mau Mau might spread right across British East and Central Africa, but on the other hand, the reactions against Mau Mau following the massacre could be used, if a vigorous bold and constructive approach were made by the Government along the lines that have been suggested this evening.
As many hon. Members have said, out of this massacre good may come if we know how to use the reaction it has caused. This will only be possible if the Government do not falter and if they do


not show themselves feeble and unimaginative. It is only possible if the Government will, with greater boldness and greater trust in all moderate opinion of all loyal Africans, press forward with a more progressive policy—not a wild Utopian one—directed to proper ends, namely, to improve conditions in Africa. If this is done, then out of this atrocious thing we have been discussing this evening good may yet come.

9.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The thanks of the House are due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for the temperate tone of his speech, so sharply in contast with those of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway). My first task should be not only to assure the House about our objectives in Kenya, but to try, as far as I can to show that those objectives are common to all hon. Members in every part of the House.
Some criticism has been made of my lack of sympathy. The hon. and learned Gentleman was at it again and he talked about me ignoring the progressive movements in the Colonies. I am not going to attempt to meet that. It is quite untrue and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can go on saying it as long as they like. I can say with the utmost sincerity that what we are trying to do in Kenya is to build a society of all races, to raise the economic conditions of the country, including wages, and to see that all races co-operate together in the country where they can go on living and educating their children as they wish, as, indeed, they can in Kenya. That is our objective and let no one have any doubt about it.
But it does this objective no good whatever to make the kind of malicious, mischievous and intemperate speech such as that delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton. He threw the blame chiefly on the white settlers in Kenya. The white settlers there are under great pressure at the moment. We want to see this whole situation dealt with calmly and I will try to do it in that spirit. I have very few notes and if I miss any point which hon.

and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to take up I hope they will interrupt me.
I think that the main tenor of the debate is designed to show that Government policy in Kenya is now in rags and tatters, that it has failed and we have to retrace our steps. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick used the phrase that we must regain the initiative from Mau Mau. That is not at all the kind of phraseology that I should use. Let us go back and see what the facts are. On 28th January I used these words in the House:
There is evidence that the area under Mau Mau influence is being reduced. These developments, and the closer policing of the Kikuyu districts, have, however, driven some of the Mau Mau leaders to more desperate measures, and the danger of savage attacks-by gangs may even for a time increase."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1953; Vol. 510; c. 1014.]
I spoke of what had been happening; that the area of Mau Mau activities had been compressed and that the leaders had been driven, by such measures as-combing the edges of the bamboo forests and closer policing of the Kikuyu areas, to take these new measures and to resort, not to sporadic assassinations but to more or less organised raids and so forth, by large bodies of men. That is what has happened. This is—

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Lyttelton: I really cannot give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman a great deal of latitude. He made a most intemperate speech and has done a great deal of harm. He must at any rate let me develop the first part of my argument before I give way. I will give way later. No, I will give way now.

Mr. Paget: All I was wanting to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether he was claiming that the fact that sporadic crime had now developed into the major military operation of which Mau Mau were capable was an improvement. That is what he seemed to be saying.

Mr. Lyttelton: Nothing of the kind. I only said that the compression of this terrible Mau Mau into an area of Kenya and closer policing were following a very common mathematical formula and causing these particular activities to be much more intense than they were. That is what has happened.
Nearly every argument that has been used this afternoon, and some of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I heard about Malaya. The hon. and learned Gentleman had only one constructive suggestion to make in his speech, and that was to move General Templer from Malaya, to cancel the Constitution of Kenya in every respect, and to set General Templer in sole authority over all these matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman coupled that argument with the rather peculiar one that the Government was rather too authoritarian and he actually read a number of extracts from the regulations, of the drastic nature of which he complained. I ought not to devote very much time to the hotch-potch of inconsistencies which he delivered.
There was one other thing he said. He referred to the Mau Mau movement as "a national resistance movement." Could anything be more fantastic when, as a matter of fact, out of the whole population of Kenya only one-quarter are Kikuyu and out of the 1,250,000 Kikuyu, or thereabouts, a very large proportion are loyal? A very large proportion of those who have taken the Mau Mau oath have done so under intimidation. To describe this as "a national resistance movement" and to relate that term and all that it means to us to what happened on Thursday is unworthy both of the intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of his profession.
What we want to do is to build a common society in which inter-racial cooperation is raised to the greatest point that we can. Of course, these are difficult matters. It is very difficult at this moment, when Europeans are under great pressure and live under conditions of terrible strain; when nobody knows, when the dogs begin to bark at night, what will happen. There is great difficulty in bringing them in. We have the great difficulty in getting co-operation from the Africans because they themselves, as the figures will show, are rent by intestine strife.
It is customary for hon. Gentlemen to describe the inhabitants of Kenya as just "Africans," but do hon. Members think it is easy to get co-operation among the Masai, the Luo and the Kikuyu at this moment? Has it ever occurred to them

that the term "African" is entirely misused in this context? They say "Asian." Are they not aware that it is very difficult to bring the Asians together, the Hindu and Moslem populations? These vague phrases—"Let us bring all the races together now"—are a little difficult.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Surely the Secretary of State knows that all the races, including the Asians, such as the Hindus and Mohammedans, are all represented on the Legislative Council.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Moslems are solidly behind the Government of Kenya at present. But let us have no argument about our objectives. What I have to think of, what Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Kenya have to think of, is what we are going to do now. With all due deference, all the speeches to which I have listened show a complete lack of reality. We have to deal with the threat now. I heard all these arguments over Malaya and yet the previous Government allowed the Malayan situation to get into an almost irretrievable position, not from lack of good intentions —they were full of those.
All their intentions over the long-term problems of Malaya—racial co-operation and internal government—I share, but one must have more than good intentions in this world. We have first to deliver freedom from fear to the inhabitants and, in doing that, we have to make it quite clear that they are fighting for something. There I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick has been saying. They have to see an objective, an ideal for which they are struggling, but our first duty is to deliver peace and order. We must do that. No suggestion that has been made this evening impinges on the immediate problem, which is, first, how are we to protect the loyal Kikuyu, secondly, how are we to build up racial co-operation in the present circumstances, and, thirdly, how we are to suppress what is a terrorist organisation.

Mr. John Dugdale: Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich) rose—

Mr. Lyttelton: I have a very short time. I did not interrupt many of the speeches.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have anything to say.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have a good deal to say. I did not interrupt many of the speeches—

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman invited interruptions.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am entitled to a hearing on this occasion. What are we going to do now? The only constructive suggestion, other than the general ones I have mentioned, is that we ought to bring the responsible African leaders into play. There, again, the phrases used are completely misleading, because that is exactly what we are doing. What do hon. Members opposite think of those Africans who, all over the Kikuyu areas, are leading the resistance groups—now I am using the correct phrase—against the Mau Mau? Those are the responsible African leaders and everything they are doing is being helped by the Government. I have messages from them here with which I will not trouble the House, but these are the men who are doing it.
The responsible African leaders to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was referring were, of course, one or two political leaders. What has happened over them is that time and again they have been told by the Government that if they would define the constituencies or the meetings which they wished to address, security arrangements would be made if it were possible. Not surprisingly—I am not throwing a brick at them—those applications have not been made.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that we are deterring these African leaders from getting into touch with their people. I have a recent telegram here, about three weeks old, saying that Mr. Mathu had been offered the opportunity of addressing his constituents in the Kikuyu reserve and he may yet do so. Arrangements have been made for himself and one other to tour the settled areas of the Southern Rift Valley to talk to Kikuyu labour on European farms. The object of this it to try to dissuade them from the voluntary movement back to the reserves. They have just returned from such a visit.
I must make it clear that I could not approve, nor does the Kenya Government ask me to do so, of an unlimited right of assembly in these circumstances. The only result of that would be inevitably a large increase in the number

of murders. I do not quite know what line the hon. and learned Member would take then. So utterly unrealistic is the approach to all this that the solution of an incident last Thursday is put forward of making assembly unlimited and without check.
But I give this pledge to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If any African leader wishes to address his constituents, the Government of Kenya will do their very best to make conditions under which that is possible. That has been the condition for many weeks, but we are dealing with a community in which very great risks have to be run.
My duty, for the remaining quarter of an hour, is to tell the House where we are on restoring peace and law and order, which, I think, is our first duty. Does any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite disagree with that?

Mrs. White: The right hon. Gentleman was not present while I made a few remarks. The tenor of some of the remarks, from this side of the House, at any rate, was precisely that the Government in Kenya are not effectively dealing with the very problem of law and order and that there is, therefore, lack of confidence both among the settlers in Kenya in their own Government and in this House.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady is exactly making my point. I hope, therefore, I am correct in assuming that in the remaining short time the House would wish me to address myself to what we are doing to restore law and order.
I have already tried to say that we have common objectives. The point to which I shall address myself now, and with which, I think, the Opposition agree, is that we must attempt to restore law and order, which means also the protection of the loyal Kikuyu.
The duty of Her Majesty's Government, of course, is to be satisfied that the resources and organisation are adequate; and I say, in parenthesis, that we must be satisfied that they are being employed for the right objects. The military forces are, at present, about 5,000 or 6,000 and, as the House knows, are being reinforced by two battalions, a brigade headquarters and also an infantry brigade signal headquarters. In all these matters of an incoherent impalpable sort of war, the matter of communication is prime. The result


of these reinforcements will not only be two further battalions who must be used, not only in offensive operations against the Mau Mau, but also in defensive operations of trying to protect what I may call, for want of a better word, the loyalists.
In addition to that, we want a very much better system of communications and, therefore, the extra brigade headquarters and the signal headquarters troop will attend to that. The plan is to have a brigade headquarters at Nyeri for the Central Provinces and one at Nakuru for the Rift Valley. I mention this because the reinforcements were a result of the visit of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, his appreciation coinciding with our own that the movement was becoming more violent because it was being compressed. Therefore, we think that these reinforcements are necessary. The object of the extra reinforcements is to be able at one and the same time to carry out active operations against the Mau Mau gangs and also to provide extra defence for the loyal Kikuyu.
There are in Kenya altogether 12,000 police, of which about 8,000 are regulars and 4,000 are reserves. Thirty-five new police stations have been established and 150 police posts are being built, of which 50 are now occupied. This, again, is part of a policy to try to police these areas more closely; not in the main to hunt down gangs, but to provide protection for the loyal Kikuyu.
I must say a word about the Home Guard and how they are armed. The right hon. Member was particularly concerned about this question, as we are. I say, quite frankly, that no Home Guard we can organise or arm can be expected to act without full aid from both the military and the police. If we tried to form such a force we would fail. I say, equally frankly, that we must arm them as well as we can, but it will have to be done gradually. If we armed the Home Guard, which has just been formed, for instance, with automatic weapons—which I think an hon. Member mentioned—we would run the risk that, with the lack of training in the Home Guard those weapons would fall into the hands of Mau Mau.
That is not a risk any hon. Member opposite, or on this side of the House, would wish to run. So we must aim at

building up the Home Guard and equipping them with better and better equipment as their training warrants. In the early part of their training the Home Guard tend to be vulnerable. We will use all our endeavours to see that they are protected as well as our forces can ensure that and reinforcements will help them.
As the House probably knows, the whole of the intelligence system has been reorganised as a result of a visit by Sir Percy Sillitoe, last November. He has left behind an officer, Mr. Macdonald, who has done most devoted work in the field of intelligence. To prove that the Mau Mau have not wrested the initiative from the Government but rather the opposite, I would point out that the kind of information which is coming forward has greatly improved. A trickle is beginning and, of course, in all this type of guerrilla warfare or para-military operations intelligence is valuable. It is almost impossible to conduct a campaign to restore law and order unless it is backed by every effective intelligence and it has not been effective. It was not effective and it is not easy to improve on that in a short time.
In the last few minutes I wish to go back to where I began about these objectives. We all had the advantage of talking to Mr. Michael Blundell last week. There is no doubt that his ideas are extremely liberal and his intentions in all these matters are such that we can all support. He sees, as I do, the necessity of trying to get together as early as possible another racial conference which the right hon. Member promised, a promise from which I do not resile in any way. I do not want it to come together at a time when I know from information that it would be likely to fail. I believe, as the right hon. Member said, that the horror of this last incident has possibly given us a new opportunity of looking forward to such a conference and I again pledge myself to this extent: if I thought there was any chance of useful results and not merely further quarrelling emerging from such a conference. I would do my best to see that it was called together.
The right hon. Member asked a question about an article concerning suspicions of their Kikuyu labourers and squatters entertained by some Europeans.


It is no good supposing—[Interruption.] I hope I am not interrupting the conversation on the Front Bench opposite. Perhaps, having moved a Motion of censure, the hon. and learned Member is deciding whether to divide the House. The terms on which the hon. and learned Member for Southampton moved and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough supported the Motion were in the form of a vote of censure and it would be curious if they did not divide the House. Perhaps we shall hear about that later.
I was dealing with the suspicion which the European employer is said to entertain against his Kikuyu squatter. That we cannot help. The most effective way of doing it was by this method, which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough condemns, of having cards containing the photograph of the man and his previous employer and place of employment. That has been very much criticised, but the object is to try to restore the confidence of employers that when they take on someone new they are not taking on a Mau Mau terrorist. It appears to me to be a simple measure to meet the very point which the right hon. Gentleman was ventilating when he read out the rather moving words of the lady in East Africa.
With the extra reinforcements we have, and the reorganisation of the police and intelligence service we can look forward to compressing and containing this terror. I do not take such a gloomy view about the immediate future as do some hon. Members opposite. I make no prophecies. It will require a much less impalpable situation to make any such promise. We cannot even talk about the numbers of the Kikuyu who are infected by this disease. All these things are difficult to assume. But I am sure that we are getting better information; that we are building up an increasing number of resistance groups. They receive a set-back because of such occurrences as the ghastly incident of last Thursday and we must do everything we can.
It is a matter of military and police organisation and intelligence to prevent those who are beginning to believe in our good intentions for the future of Kenya from being murdered in their beds, or what is worse, having their wives and

children murdered while they are out trying to defend the cause of law and order.
I fear that some of the things which have been said will do no good in Kenya. That remark does not apply, as I need hardly say, to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly or by his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick. In all these debates on Kenya hon. Gentlemen opposite have paid lip-service to the cause of suppressing terrorism and have then proceeded to exacerbate the situation, as did the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, by intemperate remarks and criticisms of the settlers and the Kenya Government, and, so far as possible, of Her Majesty's Government.
We shall get this terror down. We shall restore peace, not with the object of one race or another dominating the situation in Kenya, but so that Kenya may be built up by all races and have a prosperous and a peaceful future.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," resumed.

Question again proposed, "That' now' stand part of the Question."

Mr. Crookshank: I speak by leave of the House—

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. I had the Floor when the debate was adjourned at seven o'clock.
I shall not keep the right hon. Gentleman long from addressing the House. I hope that he has reconsidered the whole question, and recognises that what we on this side of the House have said was said in a conciliatory fashion, with due regard to the fact that it would be most unfortunate should there be a dispute. We believe, that the issues concerned are far too important to be debated in such a way, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that at least he will withdraw this Motion.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Crookshank: If I may speak by leave of the House, I would say that my previous intervention which I made after the debate had been in train for some time


was designed to get over the difficulty that we had heard about arising out of our not sitting late on Friday and not sitting at all yesterday—the difficulty of having the opportunity of sufficiently considering the Lords Amendments and even the opportunity of putting down Amendments to them.
When I spoke earlier and made the suggestion that by taking this business tomorrow instead of today I thought that we could have got over quite a lot of our difficulty, I thought that that was true and I still think so. But that did not receive complete assent in all quarters of the House. It was an attempt to meet the situation but it was not acceptable.
Since then we have further considered the matter to see if we could continue the discussion tonight, but we have lost three hours on the debate on the Adjournment which has just concluded. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not lost."] Lost from the point of view of this discussion. The debate was of great value but I am not discussing the value of that debate. I am discussing it in the setting of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill. That state of affairs could not have been foreseen by myself or anybody else.
We feel, therefore, that perhaps it is rather late now to begin the discussion of the Lords Amendments. Inevitably the disarrangement of business on Wednesday and again yesterday led the Government to assume that, in the circumstances which were quite outside our control, we should receive some co-operation from the Opposition. I am afraid that our assumptions have been falsified. Our surprise—if I may say our incredulity —is all the greater because no protests were made by the Leader of the Opposition when I made the business announcement last week. Indeed, I go further and say that the fact that two Prayers were put down under the aegis of the Front Opposition Bench for tonight was a clear indication, we thought, that it was not expected by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that business on the Lords Amendments would be unduly prolonged. Otherwise, why put down Prayers on such an evening?
Be that as it may, for some reason not altogether clear to the Government, the situation has completely changed. An element of bitterness was introduced today, of all days, which certainly was not here last Thursday. I introduced no

bitterness. I have merely been called names all day. We do not in any way desire to increase that bitterness. But we feel—and I must say this—that the game as played today and the tone of many of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite was out of place and should not today continue any longer.
I hope, therefore, that the House can now dispose of the Question before it. In the view of the Government there cannot be any question of postponing the Lords Amendments for three months. What we propose now is to ask leave to withdraw the Motion that they be considered today. We intend to ask the House to deal with the Lords Amendments in the week after the Budget debate. The business for tomorrow will be as announced. If my proposals are accepted, I suggest that the most convenient course would be for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison) to withdraw his Amendment, and then I and my right hon. Friend will withdraw the original Motion.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Leader of the House, at the end of his speech, has reached a very wise decision, which will reflect the wishes and spirit of the House in all quarters, but I think he was unwise to lead up to it with controversial observations that really were not necessary. On the case that I submitted to the House at the beginning of the debate, supplemented by the later speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and by others who have spoken in the debate, we made a complete and conclusive argument why the Lords Amendments should not be considered today. There has been an accumulation of circumstances, for unhappy reasons over which we had no control, and the fact of the early rising of the House on Friday, which made a material difference, and I think we made a perfect and conclusive case why these Amendments should not be taken.
I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not see the force of the case earlier in the day. That case was made, there was no effective answer to it, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Transport started the day in a mood which suggested that the Government had so decided and that was the end of it. As


the discussion proceeded, with the speeches from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby), both of them based on good Parliamentary judgment and opinion, it became clear that the general sense of the House was that it really would not be decent, for a number of reasons, for us to proceed with these Amendments tonight.
Having said that, and, I hope, having answered the points made by the Leader of the House, let me add that I am very glad that he has come to this conclusion. It is the right conclusion that we should not proceed with these Amendments tonight, and it is right that they should be left until after Easter, and, indeed, until after the Budget. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought that it was necessary to be controversial, because I should have thought that the best thing for him to say would have been that he realised the feeling of the House and that, as Leader of the House and also the servant of the House, he would bow to the feelings of the House. That would have been better, and my task would only have been to thank him for it.
I still thank him, and I say that we accept the proposal that he has made. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding which the right hon. Gentleman indicated —that the Minister will then withdraw the original Motion. In these circumstances, I would advise my hon. and right hon. Friends that there is no need for further discussion of the matter tonight.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CONSTITUENCIES (REDISTRIBUTION)

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Sheffield) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Hastings and East Grinstead) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Ipswich, Eye and Sudbury and Woodbridge) Order, 1953 [copy laid 11th March] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Preston, South and South Fylde) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Stockport, South and Cheadle) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.

Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (The Hartlepools, Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield) Order, 1953 [copy presented 11th March] approved.— [Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Newton-le-Willows [copy presented 26th March] approved.

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Rotherham [copy presented 26th March] approved.—[Mr. Studholme.]

Orders of the Day — SERVICE DEPARTMENTS' LAND, PLYMOUTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Studholme.]

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am sure that one of the reasons which must have persuaded the Leader of the House to agree to postpone the Lords Amendments on the Transport Bill is his recognition of the importance of the matter to be raised on the Adjournment tonight. Therefore, whatever criticism we may have to make about the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to express my gratitude to him for doing so.
I also wish to say that the people of Plymouth have been waiting some 300 years for this matter to be raised in the House, and that, therefore, it would have been most regrettable if we had had to wait a few hours longer. I am sorry to see that there is no representative of the War Office on the Government Front Bench at the moment. I gave notice to that Department that I proposed to raise this matter, and it may be that the Minister has been delayed for a few minutes. However, I hope he will be here shortly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): May I say that my hon. Friend has asked me to take his place for a few moments and to make a few notes of the no doubt lucid and cogent speech which the hon. Gentleman is about to make?

Mr. Foot: I am very glad to see the hon. Gentleman. I have had arguments with him before about the City of Plymouth, but, as I have said, we have been waiting for 300 years to say this to the War Office, and I think it is a bit thick that they should not be present to hear it when the time comes.
The question I wish to raise is that of the land held by the War Office within the boundaries of the City of Plymouth. It comprises a total of something just under 1,000 acres. Another 1,000 acres are held by the Admiralty, but partly because it is a good principle of military

strategy and partly because the land held by the War Office is the most precious of all, I thought it wise to start the attack on the War Office because, if we succeed with them, then, no doubt, the campaign can be transferred to the Admiralty.
I hope that when he arrives the Minister will agree at least on one simple proposition. The Service Departments owe a special obligation to the City of Plymouth and, indeed, Plymouth has a special relationship with the Service Departments. Not only is it the fact that the Service Departments hold many military establishments in the city, not only is it the fact that the dockyard is the main industry, but it is also the fact that whenever war comes the people of Plymouth have to bear the brunt of it, more perhaps than those of any other city in the land. We have to pay a heavier price than almost any other city and, therefore, we are entitled to ask that when we make requests to the War Office or other Government Departments they should treat them with genuine concern.
Ever since the days when the Black Prince came to Plymouth the Service Departments have been increasing their demands upon us. They have taken more and more, and they never give anything back. I can only recall one exception to that rapacious rule. That is the case of some forts built outside the City of Plymouth in the middle of the last century. Owing to some brilliant military contrivance on the part of the War Office it was only discovered that they were obsolete after they were completed. They were known as "Palmerston's Follies." Some 80 years later the War Office discovered their mistake and were then prepared graciously to sell them to the people of Plymouth.
Apart from that, the War Office and the Admiralty have never given back to the people of Plymouth one inch of the land upon which they have been able to lay their hands. The process has gone on for many years and we people of Plymouth think that it is time to call a halt. Indeed, we believe that something further should be done and that we should reverse this process which has.gone on for so long.
When the War Office informed Plymouth Corporation a few weeks ago that they were going to close off the area along the Stonehouse foreshore facing


Plymouth Sound, it was only natural that Plymouth should be alarmed. This area is known as Eastern Kings and Western Kings, and for many years the people of Plymouth exercised recreational facilities there. There was a slight interruption in that state of affairs during the war but otherwise, ever since 1905, the people of Plymouth have been able to use these facilities.
Now we are told that the agreement made in 1905 is to be terminated by a War Office diktat. No negotiation has taken place; indeed the demand so far presented to Plymouth is unconditional surrender. The reason given is security, but I do not think that anybody can really pay much regard to that claim. Are we really to believe, in this atomic age, that the safety of the kingdom would be put in jeopardy if the people of Plymouth continued to do some of their courting along the foreshores where their fathers and grandfathers practised the same art? I do not believe that anybody can pay much regard to that excuse on the part of the War Office.
My first demand is that this diktat should be withdrawn and that proper consultation with Plymouth Corporation should be started; and, if necessary, an independent inquiry appointed to decide on the issue. The ease with which the War Office have believed it possible for them to take over and take exclusive control of Eastern and Western Kings along the foreshore of Plymouth only gives us greater anxiety about the claims which they may make in the future.
That brings me to the main issue of the ownership of Plymouth Hoe. I must apologise if I go back into history, but I challenge the Under-Secretary of State for War, who is to reply, to deny any of the historical facts which I shall present. Plymouth Hoe faces what is probably the most famous strip of water in the whole world. If it had not been for the exploits of those who sailed from Plymouth Sound in years gone by there would never have been a War Office at all. Plymouth Hoe is also one of the most beautiful natural promenades in the world, and the earliest plans and charts, dating from the middle of the 15th century, show without any possibility of doubt that the whole of the area once belonged to the people of Plymouth. The

principle of the public ownership of Plymouth Hoe was thus established before the first Queen Elizabeth came to the throne.
The question arises: how did we ever lose this property? The first great Queen Elizabeth never thought of tampering with the rights of the people of Plymouth. She never had any quarrel with them. Indeed, she was wise enough to know that a large part of her own fame and the fame of England was owed to the people of Plymouth and their enterprises. Unhappily, later monarchs did not follow her example. During the Civil War Plymouth fought on the side of Parliament, against tyranny, and the fight of the town of Plymouth, as it was then, transformed the whole aspect of that war in the West Country and played an essential part in defeating the chances of the Stuart Monarchy.
At the time when the siege of Plymouth was lifted, towards the end of the Civil War, Prince Charles Stuart was in the West Country and could see exactly what effect the successful fight of Plymouth had had on his chances. He therefore resolved that if ever he got a chance he would have his revenge on the people of Plymouth. That is the real reason why Plymouth Hoe does not belong to the people of Plymouth today.
When Charles II came to the throne, in 1660, a vicious counter-revolution was unleashed against Plymouth. One prominent resident had his head stuck on a spike above Plymouth Guildhall. Others were thrown into jail on Drake's Island. The town's charter was taken away and transactions were immediately started for the seizure of Plymouth Hoe. The main agent in that deal was a Royalist—the first Quisling—by the name of Sir Edward Hungerford. He sold a large part of Plymouth Hoe to the Crown, although it was not his to sell, and the people of Plymouth never received a penny piece for what had once been their undisputed heritage.
I challenge the Under-Secretary of State for War to deny any of the historical facts which I am putting forward. Not only was Plymouth Hoe transferred to the Crown by the manoeuvres which I have described, but one of the first acts of King Charles was to build a citadel on Plymouth Hoe, and the guns were carefully pointed, not towards the sea but


to dominate the liberty-loving people of Plymouth.
I am not quite sure about your political ancestry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but if Mr. Speaker had been in the Chair I should have summoned to my aid his Covenanter ancestry. I am not sure whether you have a Covenanter ancestry, but I hope that the facts which I am now reciting will excite some sympathy in your breast, as I as sure they would in the breast of Mr. Speaker if he were here tonight.
The fact is that this deed of depriving the people of Plymouth of their Hoe was done almost exactly 100 years after the battle of the Armada, and the enemy it guarded against was not the insolent Spaniards or the obstinate Dutch—the enemies of that King were the people of Plymouth. To add insult to injury, this citadel—this symbol of despotism—was erected on the very place where Drake had played bowls when awaiting the Spanish fleet. The citadel still stands on Plymouth Hoe. What military purpose it serves nobody has been able to say, so far as I know. If the Under-Secretary of State can tell us exactly what is its military purpose today he will at any rate have given us one piece of information.
I am told that today, when a senior officer pays a visit to the citadel, the cooks have to be called to mount guard. The whole situation is farcical. Among the claims I am making to the War Office this evening is one to hand over the citadel and Drake's Island to the people of Plymouth.. The claim has been made by many spokesmen from Plymouth over the past 200 years and I think it is high time that the War Office listened to these requests.
Ever since the days of King Charles II, the ownership of Plymouth Hoe has been disputed. The people of Plymouth have always sought recompense for this piece of Stuart robbery. It is true that agreements were reached between the Government and Plymouth Corporation in 1821 and 1886, and it is upon those agreements, I gather, that the War Office base their present claim. But both those agreements were no better than feeble compromises. They were not agreements which the people of Plymouth regarded as settling the problem.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the copy of the 1821 agreement which he sent me some months ago at my request, but I think it is a matter of some significance that there is no copy of that agreement in Plymouth, so far as we have been able to discover. We have been unable, therefore, to check exactly what was their account of the proceedings, but what we have in the City of Plymouth Library and in the archives of the City of Plymouth in reference to the 1821 agreement is the record of the many protests about it at that time by the people of Plymouth.
What is a fact is that in 1823, two years after the agreement was signed, the same mayor who signed the agreement with the War Office had to take steps to beat the bounds on Plymouth Hoe in order to establish our claim to a large part of it. Certainly if any one examines the records they will see that the agreement of 1821, which is the entire basis of the War Office's present claim, was not considered valid by a large section of the people of Plymouth.
As for the agreement of 1886, it leased to the people of Plymouth from the Crown a considerable part of Plymouth Hoe. The Under-Secretary of State may claim that that agreement, too, settles the matter. In view of what I have described of the way in which the War Office have taken back from the City of Plymouth land which was available to us under an agreement of 1905, and in view of the fact that they took back this land without consultation with the people of Plymouth, we cannot rest satisfied when our claim to a large part of the most important section of Plymouth Hoe rests on a lease which will run out in some years' time; and rests, therefore, on the grace of the War Office as to whether we shall be able to retain it.
I do not believe that either of those agreements—either the 1821 agreement or the 1886 agreement—in any way invalidates the main argument which has been put forward by all the Plymouth historians that Plymouth Hoe was stolen from the people of Plymouth and that the War Office, therefore, are in the position of a receiver of stolen goods. What I am asking tonight is that the War Office should make an effort to remedy that situation.
Even if they dispute our legal claim, as the Under-Secretary of State has disputed it in the letters which he has sent to me on the subject—although not one scrap of evidence has yet been produced to invalidate the recital which I have given of the events which led to the stealing of the Hoe—surely the War Office should have sufficient magnanimity to approach this matter in a rather more open fashion than the hon. Gentleman has done in the letter which he sent to me. He sent me a letter which I have here—a very politely written letter, but one in which he said that while he recognised that it would be a welcome gesture for the Hoe to be restored to the people of Plymouth, he did not think it would really be necessary.
I think the hon. Gentleman should show a more magnanimous spirit this evening. I ask the War Office to appoint an independent inquiry which can examine, first, the question of the disputed ownership of the Hoe; and, next, the question of whether the citadel can be given to the people of Plymouth as a show place. One of the most wonderful panoramas any one can see in the whole wide world is that from the precincts of the citadel. Further, the citadel serves no military purpose which can be defined. I ask that this inquiry should consider giving access to the citadel as a show place in Plymouth. Next, I ask that it should consider giving public access to Drake's Island, and consider also the question of returning Eastern Kings and Western Kings to the people of Plymouth. And this independent inquiry should be given the chance to look at all the land which is held by the War Office in the City of Plymouth and make recommendations as to how it should be restored to the public ownership.
That is a perfectly reasonable request. It is not one that would do any damage to the War Office. The War Office would be able to state to such an inquiry the security grounds on which they wish to retain some of the land. They would have made a gesture to the people of Plymouth and they would have shown recognition of the services which the people of Plymouth have rendered to the War Office. It would be a fine gesture if, in Coronation year, Plymouth Hoe could be restored by the second Queen Elizabeth to the same status which it held in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. I believe

that this request would be greeted with enthusiasm in the City of Plymouth, and it would inflict no damage whatsover on the War Office.
I ask, therefore, that the Undersecretary shall not reply by turning down these proposals. I ask him to say that he will carefully consider these proposals, that he will examine the historical and legal claims and also recognise the moral claims. I ask him to realise how wise it would be for the War Office to show this spirit and recognise that it would be a fine thing for the City of Plymouth to regain titles which they held 500 and 600 years ago.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know what reply the Undersecretary is to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), who has just made what seems to me a very clear and cogent case for handing over Plymouth Hoe and the citadel to the people of that great city, but in case he is going to plead that this would set up a precedent I should like to remind him that 20 years ago it fell to me, as one of the representatives of Portsmouth, to put forward to the War Office—true, there was then a Labour Secretary of State in charge—a similar claim on behalf of the people of Portsmouth.
I am delighted to remember that Lumps Fort and the earthworks and buildings which then comprised that old fortification were made over to the City of Portsmouth and it has since been a great amenity for the people of that great city. Therefore, I hope that, following that precedent, the War Office on this occasion will see fit, in Coronation year, as my hon. Friend has said, to let the people of Plymouth once more enjoy what undoubtedly has in the past belonged to them.

10.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison):: In spite of the rather sensational touch which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) gave to this matter, we are anxious to examine the various aspects of this question, dispassionately and to do all that is possible to give effect to what the people of Plymouth want. Indeed, I think that a detached and objective view of what has passed between the Service Departments and the City of Plymouth would lead one


to the conclusion that we had, in fact, tried, in difficult times, to follow that precept.
I must say straightaway that I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the letter which he sent me telling me, broadly, the points that he proposed to put forward. There is certainly one point of agreement between us. Nobody will dispute the great historical interest and importance of the City of Plymouth and of the parts which have been the object of the hon. Member's survey. The relationship between ourselves and the citizens and the Corporation of Plymouth are, we think, good, and there has really been no issue between us for a very considerable time.
As time is rather short, I should prefer to treat my remarks in a rather unorthodox way by saying what we think we can do and then coming back to a number of points to which I should like to bring the hon. Gentleman's attention, because I thought he put a gloss upon them which is not entirely fair. We are not prepared to have an independent inquiry—the Service Departments must really be the judges of whether the defence of the country requires something—but we are prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the Corporation of the City of Plymouth to discuss any site about which they want to make further representations. We can then sit down and explain why a certain area is required by us and see whether anything can be done about it.
Having said that, I want to go a little into other aspects of the problem. I believe that before I had time to come into the Chamber the hon. Gentleman said that the War Office were holding too much land and land which is too good. We hold 600 acres and other Government Departments about 160 acres of War Department land between them. For a port of the importance and the vulnerability of the City of Plymouth, I do not think that that is an excessive amount if we are to provide the defences which are necessary.
I should also like to point out that, even if we wanted to, the War Office could not hand certain of the disputed land back to the City of Plymouth, because it belongs to the Crown Commissioners of Lands. Consequently, if any such step as the hon. Gentleman has suggested were possible, the procedure would

be that we should have to hand this land back to the Crown Commissioners. So the hon. Gentleman would have to start his attack all over again upon the Crown Commissioners.
Turning to the question of the Hoe itself, the hon. Gentleman referred to an agreement made in 1821. I would point out that the agreement was a very serious document and not by any means the sort of ramshackle affair it appeared to be from his remarks. The agreement ended by saying that it was entered into for the purpose of
putting an end to … discussions and disputes and for quieting the title of the respective parties to the said several pieces of land.
This was the very purpose of the agreement. Of course, there are always dissentients to any agreement between cities and Government Departments, but the whole purpose of the agreement was to achieve amity and to iron out and cause to disappear the disputes which had taken place until then.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me once or twice to deny his historical facts. I should not think of doing so. I have no doubt that they were correct, and his was an interesting historical survey. But it is not possible for Government Departments to go far back into history of that kind, and then to hand over the land because of some doubt way back in early history as to somebody's title to the land. We should have to go back to "1066 and all that." Where that would finally stop, I tremble to think.
May I say that I think it is important to note that the public have access for recreational purposes to all parts of the coast owned by the War Department except the area of Western Kings. I have examined that area with care, and found it would have cost a substantial amount of money, because of the installations there, for security measures to be taken so that access could be given without there being interference by passers-by. I was also told that, in fact, it was a rare occurrence for people to want to use the pathway on this site.
The present position of the Hoe is that the Corporation of Plymouth has undisputed ownership of the Hoe itself, and, in addition, have a 99 years' lease dating from 1885 originally of about 28 acres, including Hoe Park, of adjoining


land, subject to the right of the War Department to resume occupation for military purposes. From time to time small areas of the land have been resumed for these purposes, but 25 acres still remain under lease. So, really, it is an exaggeration to say that the people of Plymouth have been deprived of the amenity of this area and, indeed, of the Hoe itself. The great majority of what is generally regarded as the Hoe is in the undisputed ownership of the Corporation and, therefore, of the people of Plymouth.
I was asked what was the mystery about the citadel. The answer is that at

present it is used partly as a Territorial Army establishment and it is also to be modernised as part of the general coast defence services of Great Britain.

Mr. Foot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to give a misleading impression about the ownership of the Hoe. The area which—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.